Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

New Schools

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the seven proposed schools in Clydebank will be commenced in 1953.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): At the request of the education authority, 1st July, 1953, has been allotted as a starting date for a primary school for Protestant children at Faifley. Details of the accommodation to be provided in a junior secondary school at Drumry Road are being discussed with the authority and it is hoped to settle these at an early date, but it is unlikely that the authority will be ready to start this school in 1953. My right hon. Friend has approved in principle the erection of five other schools and is awaiting detailed proposals for them from the authority.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the outstanding success of the Labour local authority in building houses, it is imperative that the construction of schools and the allocation of permits for building schools be speeded up, and that one school will be quite

inadequate, because in less than two years many of the children of Clydebank will be without educational facilities?

Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are helping in every way we can. Nothing we are doing is holding up the building of any of these schools. I should be very glad to discuss this matter with the hon. Gentleman if he so desires.

Mr. Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why only two of the nine schools on which building was planned to be started in Edinburgh during 1952 have, in fact, been started; when it is proposed to start building on the remaining seven; and when these schools will be ready for occupancy.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The main difficulties of the education authority have been over the acquisition of sites and the preparation of plans. In two cases plans have had to be modified because the estimated costs were too high. The authority hope to start five of the schools in 1953, and the remaining two in 1954. I cannot at this stage say when they will be ready for occupancy.

Mr. Wheatley: Is the Minister aware that the present rate of progress is quite inadequate for current needs and is more than inadequate to meet future needs? To what extent is the delay occasioned by the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to capital investment and to their educational policy, and to what extent is it due to the failure, if any, of the local authorities?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the urgency of the situation in Edinburgh. Indeed, I spoke about it not very long ago. I do not think it is true to say that the capital investment programme has anything to do with these schools which are under consideration. There are local difficulties, as I explained in my answer. I can only say that we are most ready to help, and that I am quite sure we are doing nothing to hinder the matter.

Mr. Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the eight schools in the course of erection in Edinburgh at the beginning of 1952 have now been completed and occupied, how many partially completed and occupied, and how many are still uncompleted; and if he will state the reason for the delay


in the completion of these schools, and when the uncompleted schools will be completed and ready for occupancy.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Two of the schools have been completed and occupied. Two of the remainder have been partially occupied. The authority expect that the other four will be partially occupied in March. and that all six schools on which work is still continuing will be completed and fully occupied before the end of the year. I understand from the authority that they have experienced no exceptional difficulties in making progress with these schools.

Mr. Wheatley: Will the Minister explain why there should be this long delay in the completion of these essential schools in the C'ity of Edinburgh? Wherein lies the difficulty? Is he aware that the Convener stated recently in his progress report that he expected these schools to be completed this year? What is the explanation for the delay?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure that I should say this, but it may be that the Convener was a little optimistic about these completion dates. I can only suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consult with the local authority. I am sure it is not the fault of the Scottish Department.

Mr. Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 34 new schools will require to be built in Edinburgh during the next five years to meet educational needs; and if he will state the number of new schools at present under construction in Edinburgh and the number of new schools which he proposes to authorise to be started during 1953.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In January, 1951, my right hon. Friend's predecessor approved in principle the building of 34 schools in Edinburgh. One additional school has since been approved. The authority have recently proposed the addition of 13 schools to the list, making 48 schools in all. Two schools have been completed, three have been partially completed and opened, and five are under erection, but are not yet ready to open. The preparatory and planning work on 10 schools is proceeding; officials of my right hon. Friend's Departments are giving the authority all the 'help they can. and there should be no difficulty in

authorising the start of any schools which are ready to start this year, though the authority cannot yet forecast how many will reach this stage.

Mr. Wheatley: Do not the figures indicate quite clearly that the number of schools required and the number of schools being built are entirely out of proportion? Is it not perfectly clear that this situation must be associated with the Government's present policy which is putting education in pawn for a decade?

Mr. Stewart: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that is true. I have looked very carefully into the matter of the Edinburgh schools. I think the answer is that, with the resources available in Edinburgh, it would probably not be possible to build more schools any quicker.

Mr. Wheatley: What is going to happen to the educational needs of the children of Edinburgh, many of whom are at present being accommodated in private houses and halls while others have to travel long distances in order to get accommodation in other schools? What is going to be the future of the educational needs of the children of Edinburgh?

Mr. Stewart: I confess that I am most anxious about the situation in Edinburgh, and I repeat that we are doing everything we can to help. The education authorities are coping with the matter, and I do not think any children are going to be left in the position to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. However, I do not disguise our anxiety, and we shall be glad of help from whatever quarter it may come.

Mr. Wheatley: How can the hon. Gentleman say that none of these children will be left in that position in view of the figures he has given which prove conclusively that the number of schools being built or in contemplation is out of all proportion to the needs of the community?

Mr. Stewart: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the education authorities have programmes which they seek to achieve. They may not be able to achieve them all, and, therefore, they must take steps to improvise. In the present circumstances we, like our predecessors, have got to improvise, though I am sorry that has to be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — University Students (Grants)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he obtains uniformity in the method of assessing the needs of, and the scales of payment to, whole-time students at universities, central institutions, training and theological colleges qualifying for bursaries under the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) Regulations, 1949 and 1952, in respect of books, instruments, tools and materials, of meals, of special clothing, and of expenses arising out of the membership of clubs or societies.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The regulations do not impose uniformity upon education authorities in the assessment of students' need in this field. Each authority is required to take into acount the sums which, in its opinion, are reasonably required by students for these purposes.

Mr. Macpherson: While the regulations may not require it, is it not obvious that the students' needs are very much the same for the same categories of students; and would not my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to consult with the university authorities so as to get a clear idea what the various categories of expenditure for different categories of students may be and persuade them to act upon the advice?

Mr. Stewart: I think they do make contact in that way, but my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — School Meals (Charges)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and which, local education authorities in Scotland have up to date made charges for school meals either in whole or in part; how many have increased the charges for such meals; how many children are affected by these increased charges; and what are the economies thereby effected by each such local education authority.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: All education authorities make charges for school meals and all increased their charges in 1950 and again in 1951. In October, 1952, 255,000 children were paying the increased charges. Estimates of the additional annual revenue raised in each

education area by the increases made in 1950 and 1951 are given in a table of figures which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is a contemptibly mean way of penalising whole families which has not even the merit of making the penalty pay for the parsimony? Will not the Minister revert to free meals for children?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me about previous increases. I gave the figures of those previous increases.

Following is the table:


Education Area
Approximate Additional Annual Revenue


Counties:


£


Aberdeen
…
…
13,200


Angus
…
…
6,700


Argyll
…
…
4,300


Ayr
…
…
21,900


Banff
…
…
7,800


Berwick
…
…
5,600


Bute
…
…
400


Caithness
…
…
1,000


Clackmannan
…
…
2,000


Dumfries
…
…
7,500


Dunbarton
…
…
8,500


East Lothian
…
…
1,200


Fife
…
…
8,000


Inverness
…
…
8,300


Kincardine
…
…
3,500


Kirkcudbbright
…
…
3,500


Lanark
…
…
11,300


Midlothian
…
…
5,400


Moray &amp; Nairn
…
…
1,200


Orkney
…
…
2,600


Peebles
…
…
1,100


Perth &amp; Kinross
…
…
10,900


Renfrew
…
…
18,100


Ross &amp; Cromarty
…
…
14,900


Roxburg
…
…
3,300


Selkirk
…
…
1,000


Stirling
…
…
9,900


Sutherland
…
…
2,600


West Lothian
…
…
2,500


Wigtown
…
…
300


Zetland
…
…
2 000


Cities:


Aberdeen
…
…
4,000


Dundee
…
…
8,300


Edinburgh
…
…
19,000


Glasgow
…
…
63,200



Total
…
£285,000

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average cost per school meal in Scotland in 1948, 1950 and 1952.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The average costs in 1948–49 and 1950–51 were 11.87d. and 14.11d., respectively. The estimated average for 1952–53 is 18.00d.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities regarding his proposal to increase the cost of school meals.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish local authorities, apart from Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh, have protested to him against the recently-announced increased charges for school meals.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Written representations have been received from the Association of County Councils, the Education Authorities of Edinburgh, Banffshire and Ross and Cromarty and Port Glasgow Town Council. My noble Friend the Minister of State has met deputations from the Association of Councils of Counties of Cities and the Association of County Councils who urged that no increase should be made. They also represented that, if an increase was essential, the price should be raised by two stages of ld. and any increase should be postponed to a date later than 1st March.

Mr. Ross: In view of the widespread irritation and disgust that is aroused, will not the Government, even at this late date, withdraw this typical miserable example of Tory economy?

Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that we shall not be unable to repeat the action of the former Government in this matter, sorry as I am about it.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to extend the date beyond 1st March, because the Fife Education Authority and others—the Fife Education Authority is protesting about it—are having very great difficulty in formulating their schemes for approval by the Secretary of State by 1st March?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the difficulty. The point was put to my noble Friend the Minister of State for Scotland and it is being considered.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the actions of the two Governments in this respect are not comparable because the food subsidies are no longer in existence?

Oral Answers to Questions — Adult Education

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the extension of adult education in Scotland in 1953–54.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The provision of facilities for adult education, generally made in co-operation with the universities or the Workers' Educational Association, is primarily the responsibility of the education authorities. In view of the present need for economy, there is unlikely to be any substantial extension of adult education in the immediate future, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear to the authoritles that savings should be sought by increasing income rather than by any drastic curtailment of facilitles.

Mr. Hamilton: When the Joint UnderSecretary talks about the unlikelihood of any substantial improvement or extension of adult education facilities in Scotland, what exactly does he mean? Can we take it that it is the general policy of the Scottish Office, as distinct from the Ministry of Education in England, to give every possible encouragement to adult education in Scotland and the extension of that very important amenity?

Mr. Stewart: The answer is, Yes, so far as national resources will allow. I do not myself anticipate that there will be any considerable change, but in the case of purely recreational classes, about which the House is aware, I do not think it unreasonable to ask for higher fees.

Mr. Hamilton: Can we take it then that the Scottish Office is not going to circulate local authorities to the effect of making a 10 per cent. decrease in adult education facilities?

Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. We are not at present giving grants to bodies like the Workers' Educational Association as they do in England. Our system is entirely different. We have not issued any such order; nor have we any intention of doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Teachers (Recruitment Scheme)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students have been enrolled to date under the Teachers' Special Recruitment Scheme: how many are already graduates, honours and ordinary; how many are studying for a degree; and how many are taking the non-graduate course at a training college.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: By 14th February, 1953, the number of persons selected for admission to the Special Recruitment Scheme was 773; of these 111 were already graduates, honours or ordinary; 218 have been accepted for a degree course and 190 for the non-graduate course at a training college. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the success of the Scheme for which she was so largely responsible.

Miss Herbison: I should like to ask the Minister, since all the reports coming in about the students are very good, if he would take further steps to publicise this scheme. Would he perhaps use the radio, and would he try to let all those civil servants who are now becoming redundant know that such a scheme exists in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: I am very much obliged to the hon. Lady for these suggestions, which. I think, are exceedingly interesting.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding any grumbles about salaries, the success of this scheme proves that the honour of teaching in Scotland is still attracting a great number of valuable people?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

War Damage, Clydebank

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total authorisation for capital reconstruction which has been made under the war damage allocation to the Burgh of Clydebank for the period 1953.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): None, Sir.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the people of Clydebank feel a grave sense of injustice

at the fact that the blitzed towns of England and Wales have been allocated sums of money varying from £50,000 to £400,000, when Clydebank suffered more damage, proportionately, than many of them? Clydebank has had many of its halls battered down and permission to construct new ones has been refused. Why cannot we get these things done when large sums have been allocated to other blitzed cities? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his influence with the Treasury to get an early allocation of money for the people of Clydebank?

Commander Galbraith: I am aware of the situation, but the position of Clydebank is quite different from that of cities which have received additional allocations for the purpose of rebuilding— in that Clydebank had a large number of houses destroyed whereas the other cities, for which provision is being made, suffered from the loss of large shopping centres and similar amenities. The housing position is covered by the normal housing allocation.

Mr. Bence: Clydebank also suffered losses in regard to public buildings. The Clydebank Burgh Band—one of the finest bands in Scotland—lost their hall, which would cost only £7,000 to rebuild, and they cannot get it replaced. The workmen's hostel was destroyed, as were the Co-operative shopping premises. Many halls have been destroyed in Clydebank, and with our success in rehousing it is essential for an increased allocation to be made to enable the authorities to rebuild these other amenities.

Commander Galbraith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these matters are all under consideration. I am sure he would not place the hall of the Clydebank Burgh Band in the same category as essential shopping facilities in other towns.

Eyemouth Harbour

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made during the last month with plans for improving Eyemouth harbour.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I met representatives of the Harbour Trustees on 16th January and discussed the position


with them. As a result, I understand that the Trustees are considering revised proposals, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to examine them as soon as they are submitted to him.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the gale has worsened the position at Eyemouth? Will he authorise whatever temporary expenditure may be necessary to keep this channel open?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the unfortunate results of the storm. The sand bank at the entrance to the harbour has caused some further trouble. I know the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees are employing a bull-dozer to clear the channel. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that anything we can do to help will be done.

Water Schemes, Roxburgh and Selkirk

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what water schemes are contemplated for the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk; what areas will benefit; and when work will commence.

Commander Galbraith: For Roxburghshire, two local schemes to benefit the Denholm and the Newton St. Boswells and Eildon areas and a regional scheme to serve most of the landward area of the county, and possibly also the burghs, are contemplated. Work on the local schemes should start at an early date, but the county council have not yet submitted final proposals for the regional scheme. For Selkirkshire, the county council have proposed an augmentation of the Ashkirk water supply, but my right hon. Friend is not yet satisfied as to need and urgency.

Sewerage Scheme, Kirkintilloch

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what grant it is proposed to make towards the proposed sewerage and sewage disposal scheme for the burgh of Kirkintilloch.

Commander Galbraith: The local authority's application is under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, but in the present financial situation grants under that Act for the improvement of basic services are not being awarded.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this scheme was accepted, that the Burgh of Kirkintilloch were permitted to go ahead with it and have done a lot of preparatory work, and that they were held up by the previous Government in the period before the grants were being refused? In view of the fact that the seheme was accepted before the withdrawal of the grants, will the Minister consider making a grant?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir, I cannot do that because the Kirkintilloch Town Council were not committed to expend the money which would justify the grant being given.

Mr. McInnes: Can the Minister say why the grants are not being made and whether this practice is general throughout Great Britain as a whole, or is just another illustration of confining it solely to Scotland?

Commander Galbraith: Certainly not. It applies throughout the country, and in that connection I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 11th March last.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister saying that this is not a necessary sewerage scheme, and are we to understand that essential schemes of this nature are likely to be held up because of some false economy in refusing to make grants?

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. The burgh can go ahead with that portion of the scheme which in the meantime would be sufficient for their needs, instead of going ahead with the whole scheme.

Building Costs Committee (Report)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider his decision not to publish the second Report of the Scottish Building Costs Committee. in view of the fact that a draft report has been prepared and that the comparable committee for England and Wales has already issued three reports.

Commander Galbraith: For the reasons given to the hon. Gentleman on 19th December last, the Committee did not submit a report, and my right hon. Friend does not propose to ask them to continue their investigation.

Mr. McInnes: I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the Committee has prepared a report, because I have it in my hand just now. The reason why it is not being published is that the Government desire to effect an economy of £400. This is the third Government Commission report that the Scottish Office has refused to publish, and I should like to know what is the mysterious policy behind all this that denies the people of Scotland the right to this invaluable information.

Commander Galbraith: I really do not see much point in publishing material such as the Committee has handed over which in some respects requires revision and in others is already out of date.

Local Authority Members (Allowances)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present re-imbursements made to persons who serve as members of tribunals under the jurisdiction of his Department; to what extent these conditions and rates have been increased or otherwise altered during the last five years; and in what manner.

Commander Galbraith: The maximum rate of compensation for loss of remunerative time payable in the case of bodies closely associated with local authorities, as, for example, committees appointed under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, is 20s. a day. In the case of other bodies the maximum rate is 25s. a day. The first rate has not been changed in the last five years; the second was increased from 21s. in September, 1948.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the present rate is not at all comparable to the rise in the cost of living? Does he not think it would be fair to raise the remuneration to a sum which would be comparable to the cost of living, having regard to the fact that the people serving on these tribunals not only give their services but also have to incur certain expenditure?

Commander Galbraith: I think that that is another question that should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not to me.

Mr. Wheatley: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how these rates compare with the rates for similar tribunals in England and Wales?

Commander Galbraith: I understand that they are the same.

Hospital Facilities, Midlothian

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the urgent demand for hospital service in the developing mining area of Midlothian; and if he will make a statement.

Commander Galbraith: This area is served by Edinburgh hospitals, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any prospect of a new hospital in the area in the near future.

Mr. Pryde: In view of the fact that 710 square miles of rapidly developing territory is served only by the City of Edinburgh, does it not seem strange to the Joint Under-Secretary that where we are building a new town, without the assistance of the New Towns Act, the same sort of incentive should not be applied to the county?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, but the facilities in Edinburgh are very readily available for the particular areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and developments are taking place or will take place there.

Ambulance Attendants

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, in towns and cities in South-East Scotland, two persons are deemed necessary to staff an ambulance wagon, whilst in landward areas, the driver has to solicit casual assistance for the collection of stretcher cases; and whether he will make regulations to standardise the practice of carrying two persons throughout Scotland.

Commander Galbraith: As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, I do not think it would be justifiable to incur the expense of providing an attendant in addition to a driver on ambulances in areas where loading operations occupy a comparatively small part of the time the ambulance is in use

Mr. Pryde: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider it strange that cities should be offered two persons a waggon while in the counties—in one area alone, the Dalkeith and Newton-grange area, where they have now over 40,000 people who suffer from the same diseases and ailments as city people— the ambulance driver has to cadge assistance in order to collect stretcher cases?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, but the circumstances are different in the Newton-grange area. There are not so many tenements as in the Edinburgh area.

Highland Development

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the continuing depopulation from the Highland counties, what action he is taking to create greater opportunities for employment in the area, not only to arrest depopulation, but to achieve repopulation, and to reach a degree of Highland prosperity and development which could be an increasing asset to the whole of Britain.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The purpose of the programme of Highland development which is being carried out as quickly as the resources of the country allow is to encourage more people to live in the Highlands by making it possible for them to find there suitable and productive employment and to enjoy modern amenities

Mr. John MacLeod: Is it the Government's intention to encourage industrialists to come into this area although there may not be the raw materials in the area for such an industry? Many industries which come into the Highlands do not need raw materials within the area.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, of course. We want to encourage everybody who wishes and can be persuaded to come into the Highlands.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not clear from the population figures for the Highlands that depopulation is still going on; is my hon. Friend aware that until we reverse this trend we cannot begin the development of which the Highlands are capable; and would it not be very much in the interests of the whole United Kingdom that we should begin this?

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the growth of unemployment in parts of the Highlands, he will consider accelerating the programme of Highland development and making full use of the now available manpower.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Unemployment is, unfortunately, usually higher at this time of year, but we are pressing forward the programme of Highland development to the fullest extent consistent with the country's economic position.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that economy is the use of the labour available to the maximum extent; would he not agree that it is not economy to pay people for being unemployed when the same people are willing to do work for that money; is he also aware that unemployment in one district has reached over 30 per cent., and that it cannot be said to be seasonal employment but is probably due to more permanent causes; and are the Government prepared to see that their Highland development plan is put into effect as fast as labour becomes available in the Highlands in order not to have any wastage of labour, money or materials?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, that indeed is our desire and intention.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has seen fit to answer Question No. 28 on employment and unemployment, could you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why it was that he saw fit to transfer to the Minister of Labour what is now Question No. 91, standing in my name, dealing with Scottish unemployment; and why the Scottish Office is not only reluctant but quite incompetent to tell me why that Question has been transferred?

Mr. Speaker: I think the answer must be that Question No. 28 relates to the programme of Highland development.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the fact that there is really no development at all in the Highlands; and is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that in my own constituency 90 men, road workers, were paid off a week or two ago while a mass of roads remain in an unrepaired and dangerous state?

Mr. Stewart: There is indeed a good deal of development going on.

Sir D. Robertson: Where?

Mr. Stewart: In my hon. Friend's constituency. He is doing a good deal of it himself. I was not aware of the case of the road men to which my hon. Friend referred, and I will look into that immediately. It may well be that the had weather has made it impossible to do road work.

North Hydro-Electric Board

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average load factor of all water-driven hydro-electric works owned by the North of Scotland HydroElectric Board during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1952.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that the average load factor during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1952, in all hydro-electric works owned by the Board was 27.7 per cent. including Sloy, which was designed as a peak-load station, or 36.4 per cent. excluding Sloy.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total financial sum vested as capital in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at 31st December, 1952; how much has been furnished, respectively, by the National Debt Commissioners or other public authority or agency; and how much from private or other than public sources.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The total issued capital of the Board at 31st December, 1952, was £62 million, of which £57 million of stock was issued to the National Debt Commissioners and £5 million of stock was a public issue.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cumulative sum vested in capital works for generation and distribution of electricity by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, including all works of an ancillary character, corrected to the nearest £1 million and to 31st December, 1952, or the latest convenient date; and the aggregate installed capacity expressed in megawatts at that date.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the Board that their total expenditure at 31st December, 1952, on generation works, including hydro, steam and diesel generating stations, main transmission, works acquired at vesting date and works under construction, was £62 million, and the aggregate installed capacity at that date was 560 megawatts. In addition, expenditure on distribution works amounted to £19 million.

River Purification Board, Ayr

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by his Department to implement the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, in the county of Ayr.

Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has sent draft proposals to the five local authorities concerned in the establishment of a river purification board for the rivers in the county of Ayr and neighbouring areas, and he is now awaiting their comments.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that many members of angling clubs throughout Ayrshire are most anxious for this matter to be proceeded with as quickly as possible, particularly as we in Ayrshire think that other areas are being treated more quickly than the county of Ayr; and is he further aware that many farmers desire to have a clean water supply for their livestock, and to have equality with the rest of Scotland in the carrying out of prevention of pollution schemes?

Commander Galbraith: Yes. Sir. I share the angling associations' anxiety, but the matter has been before the local authority since 2nd May, 1952, and we are hoping that an understanding and agreement is now almost in sight.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether any progress has been made as regards the Clyde?

Mr. Manuel: That is not in Ayrshire.

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down that question. It is somewhat different from the one on the Paper.

Hospital Boards (Building Projects)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many building projects have been submitted to his Department by regional hospital boards; how many of these projects he has authorised; and how many will be actively commenced this year.

Commander Galbraith: The provisional building programmes submitted by regional hospital boards for 1953 include 98 projects costing more than £10,000 each. All these projects have been approved in principle, and work had already started on 57 of them by the end of 1952. Having regard to the heavy programme of work on projects already begun and to the fact that final programmes have not yet been received from all the regional boards, I cannot yet estimate how many of the remaining 41 projects will be actively commenced in 1953.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the information he has given to the House will be most depressing to the members of regional hospital boards; that it is clear from his statement that none of the latter projects which he mentioned will be actively commenced this year; that the lack of nurses' homes, for instance, near or adjacent to our hospitals is having a very bad effect on the recruitment of nurses up to the number we want; and would he give that aspect his particular attention, and possibly allow some schemes of this nature to go forward this year?

Commander Galbraith: I do not think it can be considered depressing that 57 out of 98 projects are already under way, and that another 41 are being actively considered at the moment.

Mr. Wheatley: How many of the 57 which have been started are major projects and how many minor projects; and of the 41 which have not been started how many are major projects and how many are minor projects?

Commander Galbraith: All those started are considered major projects, exceeding over £10,000 each.

Mr. Wheatley: Oh, no.

Commander Galbraith: Those are considered to be major projects. The others, of course, do not come to the Department.

Mr. Pryde: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why Ayrshire is being given preference over Midlothian when Midlothian is a reception area receiving the transfer of redundant miners from Lanarkshire?

Commander Galbraith: I was not aware that it was.

Exchequer Equalisation Grants

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Scottish local authorities received no Exchequer equalisation grants during the first year of working of the scheme; and what local authorities are receiving no grants for the year ending 31st March. 1953.

Commander Galbraith: During the first year of the scheme—that is the year 1948–49—the counties of Bute, Peebles and Renfrew and the burghs of Aberdeen, Ayr, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Perth did not qualify for grant. In the current year, on the first provisional calculation the same areas, together with the county of Dunbarton and the burghs of Dumfries, Dundee, Inverness and Stirling do not qualify.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this information shows that the aim of the Exchequer equalisation fund to distribute money in relation to local needs is completely breaking down in Scotland, and can he assure us that he is hastening the Report of the Working Committee which is at present discussing this matter?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, by every possible means.

Mr. McInnes: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that the Report of the Working Committee on this occasion, and despite past practice in the Scottish Office, will be made available to Members of this House?

Commander Galbraith: It will be laid before Parliament.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum


Dundee received in Exchequer equalisation grant during the year ended 31st March, 1952.

Commander Galbraith: Dundee did not receive any Exchequer equalisation grant during the year ended 15th May, 1952.

Storm Damage (Fallen Timber)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further statement to make regarding the measures to be taken to clear the fallen timber in Scottish forests, due to the storm of 31st January.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): My right hon. Friend is of the opinion that he cannot usefully make any further statement at present but he intends to do so shortly.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I should like to ask two questions. First, when does the Minister expect the statement to be made, and, secondly, is he aware that leading members of the Forestry Commission have expressed the view that it will take at least two years with the present resources to clear this timber; and will he impress on his right hon. Friend the need for any action which the Government can take to see that this timber is cleared within a year, if it is not to deteriorate, because these are important national stocks of timber?

Mr. Snadden: I cannot say exactly on what day my right hon. Friend will make a statement. I can only say that it will be very shortly. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, my right hon. Friend is fully aware of all these considerations, and I think that it would be better if we were to await the full statement which he will make to the House.

Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Forestry Commission have mobilised their manpower and mechanisation in order that this work may be quickly proceeded with?

Mr. Snadden: Our most recent information is that the Forestry Commission are very quickly getting down to this job in every possible way.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can my hon. Friend give the House any view as to the proportion of the fallen timber which

comprises Scottish firs and other softwood, which is likely to deteriorate within nine to 12 months unless it is peeled and stacked.

Mr. Snadden: I cannot give that information without notice. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the question down.

Mr. Steele: Is the reason for his right hon. Friend having some difficulty about making a statement because of the delay in visiting these areas?

Mr. Snadden: No, Sir.

Captain Duncan: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. Friend of the importance of planning now for this timber to be cleared from the woods within a year, whereas the subsequent handling of the timber and its conversion into sawn timber can wait for the second year?

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is intensely interested in this tremendous problem, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that all these matters are very much in his mind at the present time.

Doctors' Prescriptions

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of patients who have transferred from doctors who refused to prescribe advertised proprietory drugs to other who will do so; and if he will take steps to protect doctors from this form of pressure.

Commander Galbraith: No statistics are available. Various forms of publicity have emphasised that it is for the doctor, not the patient, to decide what is to be prescribed, and I look to the doctors to support one another in this matter.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount was spent in prescriptions in 1950, 1951 and 1952, on slimming tablets; and what researches his Department has made to satisfy itself as to the value of these tablets in reducing obesity.

Commander Galbraith: Detailed information is not available. I have no reason to think that doctors are prescribing drugs which are not of value, when taken under medical supervision, in cases where weight reduction is necessary on medical grounds.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and
gallant Gentleman aware of a report last week that £400,000 had been spent on slimming tablets? Will he confirm—it is a very important matter—whether the tablets really slim or whether they merely curb the appetite?

Commander Galbraith: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Lady refers. I would inform her that the drug, dexedrine, to which she has referred, is quite an effective drug for slimming when used under medical supervision, and slimming is not the only purpose for which it is prescribed.

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many more people die from being too thin than from being too fat?

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the drug cannot be used except under medical supervision, so that his statement is rather superfluous? Is he aware that medical opinion is that the drug does not reduce obesity but merely curbs the appetite? Is not £400.000 an extravagant sum to spend for that purpose?

Commander Galbraith: I have to rely on the medical advice given me, and that is that the drug is effective for slimming.

Overfishing Convention (London Conference)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on the proposals which the Government will lay before the forthcoming conference which will be held in London to consider measures for conservation of fish stocks in the North Sea.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I hardly think it possible in reply to a Parliamentary Question to provide the hon. Member with the full statement for which he asks. He may, however, be interested to learn that, as it will be impracticable in most countries for the new minimum mesh of nets to be introduced when the Overfishing Convention comes into force on 5th April, the conference due to meet in London on 4th March will be invited to consider the application of the fishing net provisions of the Convention with a view to allowing a reasonable period for using up stocks of existing nets. They will also be asked to discuss arrangements

for setting up as soon as possible the Permanent Commission for which the Convention provides.

Mr. Grimond: Is it the intention of the Government to make a statement at any time and give the House a chance to consider it? Besides the question of a map, will the conference consider restrictions on inshore waters? In other words, will the matter of the Moray Firth and the Clyde being closed to foreign trawlers be considered at the conference?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether that is so. I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. With regard to a full statement, it is not for me to say what should be done but I am sure that we shall take every opportunity possible to explain what is to happen.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the action of the Icelandic Government be referred to the conference?

Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that it will come up for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND

Land Drainage Schemes

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what major land drainage schemes for Scotland are under consideration; and in what areas it is proposed to implement them.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware of a number of major land drainage projects which it would be desirable to undertake, but he is not at present in a position to carry them out. As he informed the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) on 10th February, my right hon. Friend is discussing with the interests concerned the lines of possible amending legislation to enable such problems to be dealt with.

Commander Donaldson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend is also in close consultation with the Treasury on these matters?

Mr. Snadden: At the moment we are discussing with the interests concerned the legislation that may be necessary. I would not commit myself to saying that we have yet reached the stage of approaching the Treasury.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that we have had this promise for a very long time and that there is great agricultural loss through ground being continually flooded? Can he give some promise as to when the necessary legislation will be brought forward?

Mr. Snadden: I am aware of the potential reclaiming of many thousands of acres which we hope to get under a major scheme. But this is an extremely complicated piece of legislation involving long discussions and very technical questions. I can assure the hon. Member that we are getting on with it as fast as we can.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If it is a matter of finance, will the Minister consider, if necessary, changing over finance made available to certain schemes not of the same priority in favour of these very important drainage schemes?

Mr. Snadden:: That is a matter which would have to be considered with the Treasury.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the 400,000 acres of agricultural land which could be reclaimed in Scotland by a comprehensive drainage scheme has been reclaimed during the last 12 months.

Mr. Snadden: According to the Report of the Duncan Committee, it is estimated that some 200,000 acres of agricultural land in Scotland could be improved by arterial drainage works. I regret that information as to the number of acres actually improved during 1952 is not readily available, but 156 voluntary schemes proposed by owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and affecting a total area of 9,000 acres, were approved during the year.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland told me about a year ago that there were 400,000 acres which could be reclaimed in Scotland by comprehensive drainage schemes? Is he aware further that by mechanical drainage it is possible to reclaim from 50 acres to 70 acres a day? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would do his best to

listen to the Secretary of State for Scotland in so far as Scottish developments were concerned, and would he approach my right hon. Friend to ask him to do his best in this respect?

Mr. Snadden: The figure I quoted of 200,000 acres is the most recent official figure given to us by a committee set up to examine this question—the Duncan Committee. With regard to the second part of my noble Friend's supplementary question, we are very much aware of what can be done by major drainage schemes, and we are hoping to get legislation in due course to give us power to carry them out.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could my hon. Friend say what co-operation there is from local authorities?

Mr. Snadden: We have been consulting with the local authorities in regard to this question, and they have been very good in coming forward to give us their views.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a bit late for views now? Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is about the most important capital expenditure we can undertake? Is not 9,000 acres a miserable total in relation to the amount which he himself says could be reclaimed?

Mr. Snadden: Of course, the 9,000 acres to which I referred really cover minor schemes. We require legislation to carry out major arterial drainage.

Trading Services

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural trading services of his Department.

Mr. Snadden: The trading services of the Department of Agriculture relate to labour, machinery and the farming and management of agricultural land. My hon. and gallant Friend has put down separate Questions on each of these services, and I shall endeavour to answer each of them fully.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural machinery services of his Department.

Mr. Snadden: The demand from farmers for these services has fallen in recent years. The services have been withdrawn from certain areas, and elsewhere operating staffs and machinery have been reduced to the minimum capable of dealing with the amount of work offered. Charges to farmers have been increased to meet the rising costs of wages and materials, The scope and strength of the services are under constant review. The net deficit fell from £161,636 for 1950 to 1951 to £106,825 for 1951 to 1952.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the losses on the agricultural labour services of his Department.

Mr. Snadden: The pool labour force employed by the Department of Agriculture for hiring to farmers was disbanded at 31st December, 1952. This will effect a substantial saving.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these Questions are an indication of the poor thanks the farming community give to the State for the subsidies which are being given them in the way of labour and machinery to help them to do their job?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that these Questions were put down in the interests of the national economy, which is of no interest whatever to the Socialist Party.

Gin Traps

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the public concern regarding the use of gin traps which cause unnecessary suffering both to rabbits and domestic animals; and what steps be is taking to introduce a more humane type of trap for use in Scotland.

Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware of the public concern, but he cannot, in the interests of food production, prohibit the use of the gin trap until an effective, humane substitute is readily available. Eight inventors have submitted 17 models for consideration as alternatives to the gin. Of that number, one —the "Imbra"—has given encouraging results on field trial, and one—the Miller "Killmore"—has shown possibilities

which may be developed in later models. My right hon. Friend is arranging for further trials of the "Imbra" and of any other available types in the spring.

Commander Donaldson: Can my hon. Friend say whether, when his right hon. Friend has had sufficient time to test these new traps, he has the authority to enforce their use once they have been approved?

Mr. Snadden: Statutory powers exist under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, enabling the Secretary of State for Scotland to do what the hon. and gallant Member is asking.

Improvement Schemes, Orkney and Shetland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many proposals for schemes under the Livestock Rearing Act have been received from Orkney and Shetland; and how many have been rejected.

Mr. Snadden: Since the passing of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, 95 proposals for improvement schemes have been received from Orkney and Shetland. During this period 23 schemes have been rejected in these counties.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister agree that it is most important to get on with this business of developing land in the far North? Is he aware that some of these schemes have been rejected on the ground that a quantity of eggs was being produced on the farms? Will he look into that matter, and, if that proves to be the case, will he give instructions that such schemes are not to be turned down on that ground?

Mr. Snadden: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me a note of these cases. A large number of cases are at present under consideration, and the reason is that the Livestock Rearing Act has not been in operation very long. We have had a spate of applications which we are trying to deal with as quickly as possible.

Eggs (Marketing)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with egg producers and packing stations in Scotland over the future marketing of eggs.

Mr. Snadden: The Government have been in consultation with the National Farmers' Unions and representatives of the packing stations and other trade interests on this subject. Scottish producers and packers have taken part in these discussions, but there have been no separate Scottish consultations.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the Minister think that it is most desirable there should be such consultations with the Scottish Office in view of the great importance of this industry in Scotland, and will he make sure that the Scottish interests are properly safeguarded?

Mr. Snadden: The Scottish Office have been concerned in these consultations. I understood that the hon. Member was asking about other Scottish interests. As we are discussing a broad general question affecting the whole country, representation of all the National Farmers' Unions, including the Scottish, is considered to be appropriate.

Mr. Boothby: Why has the Minister never discussed this matter with the Poultry Association of Great Britain, of which I am honorary President?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN'S PENSIONS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will now revise his method of recognition of disabilities for payment of pension to that of the principle of fit for service, fit for pension.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): As the hon. Member is aware, the claim for the adoption of such a principle has been considered by successive Governments who have been unable to accept it. My hon. Friend considers that the present requirement that there must be a causal connection between disablement and service is sound and he does not feel that any revision is warranted.

Mr. Lewis: While I appreciate the length of that reply, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House, most of the people in the country, most of the Press and almost all ex-Service men agree that this is the only fair and proper way to deal with the question of

disabled ex-Service men? Will the Minister look at this again to see if something further can be done?

Brigadier Smyth: I do not quite accept what the hon. Gentleman says on that point. It is fair to say that for some time the responsible ex-Service associations have not been pressing this point because it is generally accepted, and has been accepted since the change in the entitlement conditions in July, 1943, which put the onus of proof on the Minister and not on the claimant.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Personal Case

Mr. Wade: asked the Secretary of State for War how long Private Brian M. Jupp, whose plea of conscience was upheld by the advisory tribunal on 15th December, 1952, was imprisoned under sentence by court-martial by reason of his conscientiously objecting to performing military service; and in what prison or prisons he was detained.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Private Jupp was imprisoned, following conviction by court-martial of an offence claimed to have been committed on the grounds of conscience, for a period of 47 days. The prisons in which he was detained were Canterbury, Eastchurch and Wormwood Scrubs.

Mr. Wade: Is it not anomalous that one who is found to be a genuine conscientious objector should be compelled to serve a sentence of imprisonment before his case is heard?

Mr. Hutchison: Where a soldier who had a chance of claiming conscientious objection before his service started develops a conscientious objection during his service, we want to be satisfied that the objection is bona fide. Therefore, he has to provide some form of evidence that he really does believe what he says has developed, and as soon as that has been done, he is released, as in the case of this man.

Mr. J. Hudson: Does that mean that the Government will insist on putting men through incarceration of one sort or another in order to find out whether they have a conscience at all?

Mr. Hutchison: Where conscientious objection did not exist originally, what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the system.

Chelsea Pensioners (Brookwood Cemetery)

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to see that crosses properly inscribed are provided for all Chelsea Pensioners buried in Brookwood Cemetery.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: No, Sir. The Pensioners and staff of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, are buried in a special plot and are commemorated by a central memorial.

Mr. Short: Is it not a shocking disgrace that these fine old Pensioners should have their graves marked only by a peg in the ground with a number attached to it, especially as there are a short distance away neat, well-kept graves of Poles and Czechs tended by the Imperial War Graves Commission? Will the hon. Gentleman have the graves transferred to the Imperial War Graves Commission?

Mr. Hutchison: I would point out that there is a fine central memorial to all the Chelsea Pensioners. There are opportunities for Pensioners to make comments upon this, but they have never done so, nor have their relations. If relations wish to provide for a burial outside the cemetery, it is open to them to do so, and they get financial aid. Furthermore, if a relative wanted to erect a cross of this kind, he would be allowed to do so in consultation with the authorities.

Mr. Short: Does not the Minister realise that these old Chelsea Pensioners are buried in a rough, uneven bit of ground in Brookwood Cemetery and that each grave is marked only by a peg with a number on it? Does he not regard that as shocking?

Mr. F. Maclean: What expenditure would be involved in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion?

Mr. Hutchison: About £l0 to £12 each. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The funds of Chelsea Hospital are not excessive, and we believe it is better to expend them on the living.

Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government are making money out of the Chelsea Pensioners? Before a man becomes an inmate of the Royal Hospital he has to surrender his pension. Would it not be only decent to give back some of that money in order to erect at least a headstone?

Mr. Hutchison: I shall have to look into that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Short: It may be a small thing, but I regard it as a minor national disgrace. I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to raise a point of order affecting the whole House. Questions Nos. 54 and 55 stand in the names of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I am not discussing the merits of the Questions, but I should like to know whether it is permissible for two Questions to be put on the Order Paper after the hon. Members at an earlier date stated they intended to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: In deciding whether to accept or reject a Question because of previous notice of an Adjournment Motion, it is proper for Mr. Speaker to take into consideration not only the fact of there being such a Motion, but the probability of it being reached in reasonable time. In this case, the general notice was considered to be so far distant from fulfilment that the Question was allowed.

SUDAN (ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT)

Captain Waterhouse: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take in view of the statement by General Neguib contradicting the assurance given to this House that on attaining independence the Sudan would be free to seek an association with the British Commonwealth if she so desired.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): My statement in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend on 12th February stands. Her Majesty's Government hold that "complete independence" includes the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving self-determination. Complete independence clearly could not prevent the Sudan from seeking any association with the CommonweaIth or any other arrangements it wished which are in accord with such independence.

Mr. Paget: Since it would appear that the Egyptians understand one thing by this Treaty, and the right hon. Gentleman another, is it not desirable that this difference should be cleared up before the Treaty is ratified?

Mr. Eden: On 9th January Her Majesty's Ambassador was instructed to explain to the Egyptian Government that we understood "complete independence" to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on their achieving independence. So our position was made plain as long ago as 9th January.

Captain Waterhouse: Does not General Neguib's statement since signing this Agreement make it abundantly clear that the object is not to allow the Sudanese to have self-determination and independence but to place them under the heel of Egypt? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if these repeated statements do not make it quite impossible to accept the word or the signature of the Egyptians, and if this continues would it not be to the advantage of the Sudanese to send the Egyptians out of the Sudan by accepting their denunciation of Condominium?

Mr. Eden: General Neguib's first statement after the Agreement was signed was that he hoped that this would be the beginning of a new era both between Egypt and the Sudan and Egypt and Her Majesty's Government. I certainly most warmly reciprocate that sentiment, but if it is to be carried out there will certainly have to be an increasing measure of restraint on all sides.

Mr. H. Morrison: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the words "complete independence" are not inconsistent in themselves with association with the British Commonwealth. After all, the British Commonwealth countries are independent although members of the Commonwealth. But it would be a pity if there were any misunderstanding between us and the Egyptians on this matter. Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interpretation of the words in the sense that he has indicated are consistent with the way in which they are understood by the Government of Egypt, namely, that they recognise that the Sudanese are free to be associated with Egypt, free to be independent outside the British Commonwealth. or free to be independent inside the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Eden: What I said was that on 9th January we gave our interpretation of these words "complete independence" and we stated we understood them to include the right of the Sudanese to choose any form of association with any other State on achieving their independence. That was as long ago as 9th January. As regards the Commonwealth, what has been said about it is, I think, in large measure due to the fact that many countries do not seem to understand that the Commonwealth is, in fact, a partnership of completely independent nations and that nobody can join it except as a result of consultation with, and acceptance by, those who are in it already.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure everyone sympathises with the right hon. Gentleman and everyone knows what Her Majesty's Government said on 9th January. The first point I want to put is to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not what was said by Her Majesty's Government, but does General Neguib and his Administration now accept that interpretation?


Secondly, if they do not accept that interpretation will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to the House that no further negotiations will take place until that interpretation is accepted?

Mr. Eden: It is perfectly clear that we have made plain our position, and I have made it plain once again to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) shakes his head. I have made plain my position this afternoon so far as the English language can mean anything at all. I also made it plain on 9th January. By that position we stand, and that position I am not prepared to vary. I cannot say what the comments of any other Government will be on what I have said this afternoon until they have been made, but I can say that what we have said in the negotiations, what I have said to my right hon. Friend and what I have said now, are precisely and exactly the same.

Mr. J. Amery: In view of the fact that General Neguib's statement was broadcast to the Sudanese, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that what he said on Thursday last and again today will also be broadcast so that no misapprehension will be left in the minds of the Sudanese people?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I will see that that is done.

Mr. Nally: Would the Foreign Secretary emphasise the point that has already been made, that the decision whether or not to join the Commonwealth is entirely a decision for an independent Sudanese Government to take at some time approximately three years from now, and will he further make it plain that neither he nor the Egyptian Government are capable of entering into an agreement that binds an independent Sudanese Government, subject to Sudanese opinion and acting under its own authority to make whatever decision it likes at a time approximately within the three years limit?

Mr. Eden: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has very clearly stated the position. This is a decision not only to associate itself with anyone in any way; but it might be that the Sudan three years from now might want to make a

treaty or take any other action. Once self-determination has taken place, it is entirely a matter for the Sudanese Government

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that no one wants to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman or impede the movement which has been started in the Sudan; but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is little likelihood of regular progression unless the two Governments concerned understand each other precisely? Will he therefore tell us whether, when he made his interpretation on 9th January, it was accepted by the other Condominium Power?

Mr. Eden: I know that the explanation was given by Her Majesty's Ambassador, and I know also that as a result of it there was a change made in the text itself. The text of this particular clause originally ran that the alternative included a Sudan
completely independent of the United Kingdom, Egypt or any other country.
That interpretation will be found in the White Paper which I am laying now.
We did not like those words, because we thought that "completely independent of the United Kingdom" might be understood to mean that some later arrangement could not be made with the Commonwealth, so most of those words were taken out. The words finally stand:
completely independent,
without any mention of any country. I think that shows clearly that we made our point completely frankly.

Captain Waterhouse: Mention has been made of "three years," as if three years were a safe period. Is it not a fact that under this agreement the Sudanese could technically, as soon as the elections were finished, give three months' notice to proceed to a Statute of Independence? Might not the whole thing be telescoped into one year, or even less?

Mr. Eden: That would be subject to the process of Sudanisation. Nothing is less likely, if the Sudan wants to keep, as I am sure it does, its national unity in this matter. All parties in the Sudan realise that such a time-table is not realisable.

MIDDLE EAST STATES (SUPPLY OF JET AIRCRAFT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: I rise to call attention to the supply of jet aircraft by Her Majesty's Government to certain countries in the Middle East and to urge that this should stop. The reasons for this argument I will develop briefly.
We hear talk of the need to provide for the collective defence of the Middle East. I presume that the Government will argue that the supply of jet aircraft to these Powers is promoting that end. But I submit that such a phrase as "collective defence of the Middle East" can have no real meaning so long as the present state of tension continues between Israel on the one hand and the Arab States on the other. Indeed, it is only too dangerously likely that aircraft supplied to any of these States at this time will be thought of—whatever may be said—primarily in terms of those neighbours of theirs with whom their relations are not good. Therefore, I submit that the supply of these weapons at this time is likely to increase rather than to diminish the tension.
It appears to me that our first duty in this field is to do all we can to reduce tension between Israel and the Arab States, and to seek to help in the solution of such problems as the resettlement of Arab refugees about which there was such a very interesting and well-informed article in "The Times" yesterday and to encourage, not the competitive armament of those States but rather their economic development and, through their own efforts and with our assistance, to raise the living standards which are now miserably low throughout all that area.
It is now more than four years since the present frontiers between Israel and her neighbours were provisionally fixed, at the end of a war. Her Majesty's Government are committed by the ThreePower declaration of May, 1950, along with the United States and France, to protect those frontiers against violations

or aggressions from either side. The actual terms of the declaration by the United States, the French and ourselves are as follows:
The three Governments take this opportunity of declaring their deep interest in, and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of, peace and stability in the area, and their unalterable opposition to the use of force between any of the States in that area. The three Governments, should they find that any of these States was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation.
That is very fair, very emphatic and very right, and it means that we have a very particular interest, so long as the present tension continues, in maintaining a low level of armament in all these States. The fewer weapons of war they have for the present the better, and it might, in some conditions, be the better for us.
Frontier incidents have been causing great concern to all who are interested in the area, and they have lately been growing. Tension has not been diminishing, but has been rising. We all deplore these frontier incidents. They are partly due to the drawing of a frontier which is no more than an armistice line when fighting ceased. Could we only get reasonable relations between these two nations, a number of comparatively small changes in both directions could be made in the existing lines which would diminish tension and the risk of incidents. That cannot be done so long as there is no effective relationship between Israel on the one hand and the Arab States on the other, which still refuse to recognise diplomatically the existence of the State of Israel at all.
The incidents have come from both sides. They have included the blowing up by Arabs of an Israeli railway line and a goods train, the bombardment by Israelis of two Arab villages, the infiltration, as the word is, by a number of Arabs both from the Gaza strip and from Jordan who have pillaged Israeli settlements, carried off pipes intended to irrigate the Negev and, in other ways, have done damage in Israeli territory. It is easy to multiply and extend the long list of these incidents, which Her Majesty's Government should be using all their influence to seek means to diminish. In


particular, we should be trying to get better liaison on the Israel-Jordan frontier, through representatives police or military as the case may be—of the two Governments.
I shall not say any more about Egypt. We have had a few words about her just now. But Egypt is still regarded as the leading Power in the Arab League Therefore, upon Egypt, in that capacity of leadership, there falls an especially heavy responsibility for the continuance of this state of war, as the Egyptians still declare it is. We have considerable grievances ourselves in this matter, because for years the Egyptians have continued to interfere with shipping, including our shipping, passing through the Suez Canal.
I wish this afternoon to discuss this problem in terms of actualities of this moment and not unduly to pursue either long-range prophecies or backward looks into history, but the right hon. Gentleman did protest very strongly—and rightly I thought—against Egyptian action in regard to shipping passing through the Canal and the present Prime Minister spoke even more strongly on the subject. Anyone who cares to turn up the debate of 30th July, 1951, will find that the present Prime Minister spoke in terms of great warmth and indignation against Egyptian action:
In breach of this armistice the Egyptians have closed the Suez Canal... In breach of the armistice the Suez Canal was closed to all passage of tankers to the Haifa refinery." — [OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th July. 1951: Vol. 491. c. 985.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to develop that. That blockade is still going on and I must say that in these conditions I do not think Egypt is a suitable recipient for further weapons of war from this country at this time, particularly as there still remain evident ambiguities in the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman has been making with them in regard to the Sudan.
I now turn to speak of the Arab refugees. Here is an intensely human and very large problem affecting at least three quarters of a million people and perhaps nearly a million, living in most deplorable conditions, breeding in the midst of misery and without hope. Their number is steadily increasing by the excess of births over deaths. the deaths

being diminished by United Nations medical agencies performing miracles in this environment. The United Nations have done a very fine job for which we should all be very grateful, but surely this cannot be continued without a serious effort being made to give these people new hope and a new life. Evidently, what is required is that there should be large-scale and persistent efforts at the resettlement of these unhappy people in some place they may call their own.
Spokesmen of certain of the Arab States still speak of repatriation as the solution of the refugee problem, but this is a cruel deception as applied to the great mass of refugees. It could only come about if the State of Israel were to be destroyed—if the Israelis were to be massacred, or driven into the sea. I assume that no hon. Member in any part of the House wishes to see that sort of solution. Therefore, we must exclude totally the solution of repatriation
except perhaps for a small minority for the great mass of these refugees.
I will come in a moment to positive proposals, but there is too much dangerous talk in the Arab States by leading statesmen of what they call a "second round" with Israel, in which they hope to reverse the military results of the war of 1948–49. Here I merely repeat that the United States, France and ourselves are pledged to prevent any such second round. We are committed by the Declaration I have read to resist egression from either side. Ibis is not a time to supply jet planes to this area. They might indeed be used not only by Arab States against Israel, but also against troops, or air or other forces, of our own and of the United States or France entering into that area in order to prevent aggression under the Declaration of 1950.
I now turn to the more positive side of what should be sought to be done for these refugees.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the supply of aircraft, will he explain why two years ago, when the situation was far worse, his Government were supplying spares to keep such aircraft in the air?

Mr. Dalton: I was deliberately not wanting to hide under the skirts of history as so many people do when embarrassed on one side or the other in modern political discussion. I said I wished to consider this matter in terms of the actual situation existing today. I was not trying to score debating points from the past, although I have mentioned what the present Prime Minister once said. I do not wish to be side-tracked from a serious discussion by a lot of polemical reminiscences, the net result of which is usually unsatisfactory to all who participate in them. Let us talk about the resettlement of refugees.
I should like to quote with approval a statement made by a noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who was once in this House. Speaking for the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations on 4th December last, in the Political Committee, he said:
the United Kingdom representative has already said that in his opinion a majority of the refugees would find a happier and more stable home amongst their Arab brethren. But so long as there had been no definitive settlement of the Palestine question those refugees would continue to live in a state of uncertainty. Would their future not be brighter if they were helped to settle in a country whose inhabitants were of the same race, the same culture and the same religions as they? Of course. they were entitled to fair and full compensation for the property they had left in Palestine.
So spoke Lord Llewellin, and I wholly agree with him. It is on that plane, in my judgment, that this problem should be discussed. I very much regret that so far the rulers of the Arab States have not been willing thus to discuss it.
I much regret—and here I come to the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)—that, as recently as last December, the Arab States refused and resisted the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in the United Nations to enter into direct negotiations with Israel without commitments or conditions on either side. This proposal was supported by Her Majesty's Government here, by Her Majesty's Governments in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, by the United States, by France, by the Scandinavians and a number of other countries. This proposal had a majority but, unfortunately, not a twothirds majority, in the General Assembly.
The reason for this was that massed against it were the Arab States, the Soviet bloc and certain Asian and South American countries. This failure to get direct negotiations started, and the state of mind it exposes among the rulers of the Arab States, is yet one more most topical argument—washing out much past history —against the supply of jet aircraft at this moment to the Arab States.
The continued tension between Israel and the Arab States is, of course, agreeable to the Soviet Union. Recently, in the breaking off of relations between the Soviet Union and Israel, the pretext was a bomb outrage at the Soviet Legation at Tel Aviv, which we must all deplore very much. But in my judgment that was only a pretext following a series of antiSemitic utterances and actions in Soviet Russia, and Czechoslovakia. Following the breaking off of relations in this way, the Soviet Union has come into line with the Arab States in refusing to recognise diplomatically the existence of the State of Israel. That, and any implications it may have, should be noted in passing.
Let me add that the Arab refugees, in their present condition, are the most fertile breeding ground for Communism that could well be imagined. Indeed, speaking broadly, it is the poverty of the massses in the Arab States which is one of the great encouragements to Communism in the Middle East, whereas, on the other hand, Communism in Israel, particularly lately, has become completely negligible, for obvious reasons.

Mr. W. Nally: If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, will he bear in mind that the first great State to recognise the Government of Israel was the Soviet Union, and that the very Government that is now deploying the reverse argument deployed it the other way when the Soviet Union recognised the State of Israel? Will he also make it plain that it is hardly fair to blame the Arab States for the fact that three-quarters of a million refugees in Jordan are being denied access to their homes?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend asked me to give way and I did so primarily because he challenged my statement that Communism in Israel is now negligible. That I reassert. I said that it would be surprising if it were otherwise. I am


talking of the actual situation. With regard to the other point, my hon. Friend has no doubt been following attentively the course of my argument and will observe that I have taken account of the point he put to me. For the moment I am wishing to draw a few conclusions in the diplomatic field from the disruption of relations between Israel and the Soviet Union.
One word more about the May, 1950, Declaration. In that the three Powers said that they were strongly opposed to an arms race in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab States, but that is just what this policy of offering to sell planes to all of them will promote. As I understand, the offer that has been made to Israel and to each of the Arab States is that an equal number of jet planes may be supplied to each of them. If that is the proposal, it is bound not only to promote an arms race, but also to shift the balance of potential armed power heavily in favour of the Arab States as against Israel, because to each of the five Arab States will be offered the same number of jet planes as is being offered to Israel. That is how the matter has beer presented in the public Press, but no doubt the Minister of State will give precision to this point?
I submit that, far from encouraging this arms race at the present time, neither the Arab States nor Israel should be encouraged to spend their slender resources on this kind of weapon. I do not know what is the cost of a jet plane and I do not press for that to be told to us. If it could be thrown in as a piece of additional information it would be interesting, but it is at any rate a substantial sum, particularly for a poverty-stricken State. I submit that at this time we should be encouraging the Arab States and Israel to be spending their resources on raising the standards of living of their own people and resettling those who come into these countries, either because of persecution abroad or because they are refugees following on the events of the 1948–49 war.
I hope, therefore, that on further consideration the Government will not persist in their announced intention of supplying further jet planes to any of the States in this area. I repeat that I am speaking only of the present situation. It may well be that, if we should succeed in improving the relationship between Israel and the

Arab States, a different attitude might be adopted and many of the present objections to this policy—not all, but a number of them—would fall away. As things are. I earnestly press upon the Government that at this time they should not supply jet aircraft to any of the Arab States or to the State of Israel, and I trust that the Government will be able to accede to this request.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said at one stage of his speech that he did not intend to indulge in polemical reminiscences. I will try to meet him in the same spirit and to discuss this matter in the way in which he has discussed it.
It seems to me that there are a number of different factors to be considered when we are looking at the problem of selling arms to a certain part of the world. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them, but he did not mention all of them by any means. The questions we should ask ourselves in looking at this matter are as follow: First, is this equipment required at home? Secondly, is the export worth while financially? Thirdly, will it strengthen the productive capacity at home? Fourthly, to what use will the purchasers put these arms? Fifthly, what will the consequences be if we do not supply them and, finally, will the transaction constitute a general increase in tension and the risk of war? Those are the questions which I shall seek to answer—

Mr. Ernest Davies: In that order of priority?

Mr. Lloyd: In putting forward the views of Her Majesty's Government on these matters—

Mr. R. T. Paget: A question which interests me is this: if we do not supply them, can they get them from somebody else?

Mr. Lloyd: That was the fifth question I put forward: what would be the consequences if this country did not supply them?
Before I try to answer those questions —and I am not suggesting that any particular importance should be placed upon


the order in which I try to answer them— there are two matters which I should make clear because they are matters of fact. What I am about to say will not be said in any spirit of reproach.
The numbers involved are extremely small. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwel1), former Minister of Defence, made perfectly clear, it is not the practice to reveal actual numbers with regard to these matters in this House. However, since this Government decided that we had some jets available for sale, we have sent to all the Middle East countries less than half the number sent by the previous Government to Egypt in 1950. That is a question of fact. There is this further consideration, that when the deliveries now contemplated are added to those already sent, the number sent to all the Arab States added together will still be less than the number supplied to Egypt in 1950.
The second consideration to which some hon. Members on the other side of the House will pay a certain amount of regard is that this is not a question of exports to the Arab States alone. Israel has also concluded a contract to purchase some of these aircraft. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me for an undertaking that no more shall be sent. I ask him, or at all events some of his friends, to have some regard to the consequences that would have upon the contract entered into with Israel.

Mr. Barnett Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me to ask one question?

Mr. Lloyd: May I finish this point? It would mean that the Government of Israel would have no jet aircraft at all if we were to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. Another effect of his request to the Government would mean a repudiation of our treaty obligation both to Iraq and Jordan.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer a question which my right hon. Friend asked him? Would he tell us the proportion of aircraft which would be supplied to the whole of the Arab States as against Israel?

Mr. Lloyd: I will attempt to deal later with the question of parity. There are many considerations other than those of actual numbers. There are, for example, considerations of serviceability, technical skill, the capacity to keep the aircraft in the air, geography, and so on. It is not just a question of a mathematical formula.
I was pointing out the consequences if we were to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request. First, there is the effect upon Israel. Secondly, a number of jets have gone to the Arab States and it would mean that the Israeli Air Force would not be able to make any acquaintance with this arm. It would also involve repudiating treaty obligations to at least two of the Arab States. It is impossible to generalise on our responsibilities to the Arab States, because we have very different relations with the various Arab States concerned.
Having made those few preliminary remarks—first of all as to numbers, which, as I say, I cannot reveal but I have given an indication of the problem; and secondly, the consequences upon Israel— I will now endeavour to answer the questions which I posed earlier. My first question was whether these aircraft were wanted at home. The answer is no; nor are they wanted for sale to any N.A.T.O. country. The House will recollect what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 4th December last year, when dealing with the consequences upon the defence programme of certain alterations:
Some curtailment "—
he was dealing with defence production—
must therefore now be made. This will to some extent involve the cancellation or modification of contracts already placed. [Hon. Members: ' More unemployed.'] The firms concerned will be fully informed of these changes by the production Departments."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1952; Vol. 508. c. 1776.]
The first matter is disposed of, in my submission. These aircraft are not required at home, nor are they required for other N.A.T.O. countries.
The second question is: are they a worthwhile export from our point of view? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, a modern jet fighter costs a great deal of money. It is not possible for me to give the exact figure, but I can tell him that it is a large sum of money. What


is more, its conversion value is very high. The labour element in cost is very high indeed, and it is extremely important that we should get into these markets if we are to earn our living in the world. From the point of view of a worth-while export, it is very much to the economic advantage of this country to succeed in getting into these markets.
Thirdly, these sales will help to maintain our productive capacity at home. We all know that the real menace to the security of this country at present is the risk of Soviet aggression. That risk only recedes as we build up our strength to face it. That will not be a short business, and it does not need much imagination to realise that our potential enemies hope that we will tire of this process of building up our defences. To put them on an effective basis a very great demand has to be made upon our economy.
The only way to make that burden tolerable and, at the same time, to maintain productive capacity and a skilled labour force which will be adequate for an emergency if it comes is to sell part of our arms production abroad. That position has been made perfectly clear in defence debates in this House. A recent example of the consequences to which I am referring was given in the statement made to the Press by Sir Frank Spriggs on the sale of 70 aircraft to Brazil. He said that that would prevent 2,000 men being stood off for a period of six months. To keep our skilled labour force together for aircraft production is a very important factor indeed, and we cannot do that unless we sell a proportion of our arms production overseas.
On the three points which I have put so far, I submit that the case for continuing with these sales is overwhelming upon economic grounds, but I agree that there are political considerations and I want now to look at those considerations. The first question under this head—my fourth question in order—related to the use to which purchasers will put these weapons. Of course, it is possible that an attempt might be made to use these weapons against our own troops. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contingency of us seeking to interfere and enforce a frontier peace between Israel and the Arab States. We do not believe that that is likely to happen, but the numbers involved are so small that the

effect upon the security of our Forces would be negligible and I am advised that there is no real threat at all.
Those with knowledge of the balance of air power in the Middle East and of other relevant factors, which it would not be altogether wise of me to mention—I expect some hon. Members can guess what I am referring to—will know that the estimate to which I have given expression is a real one. I submit that that sort of consideration is quite different from the sale of something like a machine gun which can be conveniently used behind a hedge or from a window in a house. In my submission this weapon does not involve any real threat to our Forces.
Then I come to the next matter: will the weapons be used by the recipients for aggressive purposes against one another? Again, we do not believe that that will be the case. The right hon. Gentleman has already referred to the Tripartite Declaration of 25th May, 1950, and it is an extremely important document in this context. The right hon. Gentleman referred to paragraph 3. I will not re-read that paragraph because it makes quite clear the position of the Governments of the United States, France and this country. It also says that those three Governments recognise the need for these Middle East States to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purpose of ensuring their own security, their legitimate self-defence and to permit them to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole.
The three Governments put on record their determination to oppose the development of an arms race between the Arab States and Israel. Paragraph 2 deals with certain assurances which had been received, and I do not suggest that we should act on a basis that those assurances were not honestly given and will not be honestly kept. We have had assurances that none of these States intend to use these weapons for aggressive purposes against the other. But, again, the numbers involved in these transactions are such as really deprive that criticism of reality.
The truth of the matter is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that we have pledged ourselves under Article 3 that there is any attempt to violate the frontiers or armistice lines, we will take


vigorous steps to stop that happening. We have taken vigorous steps during the course of the past few days with regard to the incidents to which he referred. Her Majesty's Government have made strong representations to one side with regard to two incidents and we have done our very best to counsel moderation on the other side. We are doing our best to arrange a better liaison between the two parties. It is completely consistent with the declaration in the tripartite statement that we should seek to do that.
Then we come to the next question, relating to the consequences of our failure to supply these aircraft. What would happen if we did not supply them? I can assure the House that someone else certainly would, and it might be someone without our knowledge of the strains and stresses in the Middle East and less able to balance the factors. I am not making that a criticism of any particular country which might supply them. All I am saying is that it might be a country which knows a little less about the Middle East than we do and is less able to judge of these matters.
Furthermore, we are under treaty obligations with certain Middle East States. With Iraq, for instance, we have an old and firm friendship. We have a mission out there helping to train their Air Force, and a natural development which that Air Force is likely to expect is that ultimately they will change over to jet aircraft. We should have broken an explicit undertaking if, when they asked, we did not provide that Air Force with up-to-date equipment.
It is the same thing with Jordan. We have a long-standing friendship with that country. We have a Treaty of Alliance with them, negotiated by the former Government. We value our association with that country, and we propose to be loyal to our obligations. Quite apart from those treaty obligations, we have contractual obligations. We have made contracts and money has been paid on account. A breach of treaty obligations and a failure to fulfil contracts would, we believe, make it even more difficult to improve our relations with the countries of the Middle East, and—I emphasise this point—would make it even more difficult to solve the refugee

problem. There can be no doubt that the solution of that problem involves a large measure of good will on the part of the Arab States, and to repudiate our treaty obligations or contractual obligations is not a good way to promote that good will.
There is another matter which is not unimportant. It is the future consideration of the defence of the Middle East. The real threat which menaces the Middle East is the threat of Communist aggression. We hope, and it was the principal purpose of the late Government, to get regional organisations in the Middle East capable of ensuring the collective defence of that area. I cannot believe that there is any better way to diminish enthusiasm for such a project than to refuse to supply up-to-date weapons and skill, and to give those air forces the opportunity of training with them. If we do not give these small quantities we shall hinder the achievement of what is our basic purpose in the Middle East.
Then we come to the final question: will this action add to the general tension in the Middle East between the Arab States and Israel? I think it is an extremely dangerous thing to suggest that tension between Israel and the Arab States is worse than in 1950. I do not believe that is true. It is dangerous to refer to it. The more people talk about tension mounting, the more they seek to simplify the matter and to dramatise it, the more chance there is of tension beginning to mount.
If the House will pardon a personal reference, I have a slight knowledge of this matter, because we spent many weeks during the Sixth Session of the United Nations, in Paris, and during the Seventh Session, in New York, trying to reconcile it. I think we were not unsuccessful in Paris, and not quite as unsuccessful as sometimes people may think with regard to the Seventh Session. The right hon. Gentleman did refer with approval to a certain passage in a speech of one of my colleagues. But if we try to over-simplify or over-dramatise this question of tension between Israel and the Arab States we are doing a great ill-service to that cause.
I welcome very much that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he deaIt with the problem of the


Arab refugees. That is a problem which is casting a shadow over the whole of the Middle East at the present time. We are doing what we can about it and it is not an insignificant amount. Our contribution this year is the equivalent of 15 million dollars. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the article in yesterday's issue of "The Times" which described the varying methods of approach and the response, which the writer described as mixed, but not discouraging. He made a reference in the article to some tangible evidence of progress.
We are actively interested in that matter, and we are continually trying to help. But it is not something which may be solved by a stroke of the pen, or is capable of any easy solution. It is a question of long, steady, patient work, of doing a little here and a little there, and of dealing with something which is much more than a political question. It is not only our desire to promote friendship with the countries of the Middle East, and to resolve a problem which is full of danger, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is also a very human problem of between 800,000 and 900,000 human beings overtaken by the dreadful catastrophe of losing their homes and all their worldly goods through no fault of their own.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will continue in the manner in which they have been proceeding to try to deal with this problem. We are contributing what we can, and other countries also are contributing. The United States have contributed a very large sum of money indeed. But relief by itself is not enough. We have to endeavour patiently to forward schemes of resettlement.
I submit that if one looks dispassionately at the six questions which I put at the beginning of my speech the case for continuing this line of action is made out. Economically, I consider it is extremely beneficial to ourselves. If we do not do it someone else will. I do not believe that we can repudiate our treaty obligations or disregard our contractual obligations. The number of aircraft involved is small, and I do not believe they will affect the balance of air power there at all. The only thing which might do that would be to yield to the request of the right hon. Gentleman and have an immediate ban.
So far as the question of parity is concerned, that is not a matter of a mathematical formula, but the relative strength of the air forces is certainly one of the features to be taken into consideration. I cannot give any assurance such as the right hon. Gentleman has asked for, but I promise that we will be extremely vigilant in the matter and continue our consideration of all these various factors. We will continue to seek to diminish the tension in the Middle East, but I would add that we are convinced that the action we have already taken, so far from being condemned, should be approved and supported.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The Minister of State has given a series of reasons which he says amount to an incontrovertible case for continuing with the policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) opened this debate in order to condemn. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has satisfied many hon. Members that any of his reasons are more than completely trivial. In advancing those reasons, I am sure he was not ignoring the real nature of the problem. I am sure he would not ask the House to believe that the supply of these jets to the Middle East, described as very few in number, is really making any important contribution to the improvement of our own economic position. It would be nonsense to advance any such claim, and I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended seriously to advance it.
If there were nothing involved in this matter but the relief of our own economic situation, this policy would never have been embarked upon, or, if it had, it would have been abandoned tomorrow. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about our contractual and treaty obligations, he knows perfectly well that the Government of which he is a distinguished member, like the previous Government of which my right hon. Friend was a distinguished member, have never regarded themselves as bound by contractual obligations, even when they had already received the money, if it seemed to them that to fulfil those obligations would result in added danger to world peace.
One has, I think, to bear in mind two facts which completely establish that proposition. One is the refusal to deliver two oil tankers to Poland for which they had already paid and with which we had bound ourselves by our contract not to interfere. The other is the contract to supply machine tools to Czechoslovakia which we held up—even though we deprived ourselves of corresponding machine tools ordered from them— because it seemed to the Government of the day, whatever the claims of contractual or treaty obligations might be, that there were superior obligations where world peace was involved. There is no reason why, if the facts are made out, the same considerations should not apply to our treaties and contracts to supply arms to certain Arab States.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something about not exaggerating tension, because every reference to it, every dwelling upon it and every emphasis of it tended to increase it and that was not a good thing. With that I entirely agree. I would only say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what is true of tension in the Middle East is true of tension in the Far East and of tension nearer home. I am glad to see that the Government recognise that we do not remove tension by always drawing attention to it and exaggerating it.
But it is a new proposition that one way of reducing tension between two people who are in conflict is to supply each of them with the most dangerous arms we can find. That is an entirely new proposition which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he intended us to accept it, ought to have developed rather more than he did. Nor indeed is it easy to see how by supplying arms—the most powerful arms we have—to nations which are geographically in a particular region but which are in conflict with another, in a state of war with one another, we make it easier to produce the collective defence of that region by these countries.
It must be plain that the first step is to bring about a state of peace in this region as between the various countries which make it up. Only after we have done that can we hope to begin to make progress with problems of collective defence or with problems of the resettle-

ment of refugees. All these are bound up with the overriding question of the pacification of this area. To supply each side with this type of arms in these circumstances is not to make a contribution to lowering tension, but to make a contribution to increasing mutual tension and insecurity on the part of every country involved.
We shall not make the Arabs feel any more secure or any more friendly to Israel by supplying jet planes to Israel. And we shall not make Israel feel any more secure, or any more inclined to make concessions in those matters in which we all think that they might make concessions, by supplying jet planes to countries which still regard themselves and declare themselves to be in a state of war with Israel, which means that, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman's confidence may be, the weapons could be used at any time.
I want to make two other comments, and no more. They are comments which may transcend the immediate necessities of the case and perhaps not be irrelevant even though they do. I think that this is the first occasion on which the House of Commons has been invited to consider specifically an Israeli problem since the establishment of the State some four years ago. There were days before then when I made speeches in the House in support of the State of Israel which did not then exist. I do not want to waste time, or cause temper or discussion, by talking about matters of history—at any rate, not of recent history—but there were not many people in those days on either side of the House who regarded the State of Israel in the light they now regard it.
It came into existence. It has been in existence for four years—four years at the end of 2,000 years of anonymity. It did not come into existence with the good will of this country; it came into existence in spite of all this country's efforts. It is not well established yet. It is perhaps one of the ironies of history that the State should come into existence after some 20 centuries not into a world of peace, harmony and constructive and co-operative civilisation but into a world divided almost equally into two mighty Power blocs each maddened with fear and suspicion, if not hate, of the other. Coming into existence in a world of that kind, it comes into existence also in an area which


each of those two Power blocs regard as of the most fundamental strategic importance.
It is inevitable that it should become to some extent the object first of support and then opposition, and then support again, first by this bloc and then by that bloc, each anxious not for its existence on its own merits but for the value that it might be in any eventual conflict between the two. No one complains of this. This arises inevitably out of history, geography and economics, and nothing that anyone can say about it will change it.
But in those circumstances this State has managed in four years to double its population and to clear the refugee camps of Europe of all the flotsam and jetsam left by the last world war and by an attack upon the Jewish people unparalleled in history. There was nowhere else for them to go. They were taken home there in spite of the fact that the Government of this country regarded the admission of a mere 100,000 refugees as something so economically unthinkable that they wrecked a very good chance of early settlement of the Palestine problem rather than agree to the admission of those refugees.
Neither economically nor strategically is this little State secure. Its life economically hangs on a thread. It is nowhere near self-supporting. It could not be in the circumstances. How can it afford jet planes? And, if the Government supply them to the Arab States, how can it not afford jet planes? What do the Government expect the State of Israel to pay them in return for their jet planes? Out of what economic resources, out of what raw materials, out of what finished products or out of what dollars? It is an impossible burden to put upon them at this moment to equip them with planes of this kind. They cannot pay for them, and, if we supply them to the Arab States, they must pay for them. They must find the money.
What are the Arab States to give us for them? What are we to get in return? What is this magnificent contribution to our economic difficulties that we are to get out of selling a handful of jet planes to one side or the other side of peoples who are almost at one another's throats'? There is nothing in this argument. This country will gain more economically out

of the pacification of the Middle East than it can ever get out of arming one side or the other, and our efforts ought to be directed to that end.
Does anyone really believe that, if this country unitedly, with the support of both sides of this House, can agree on foreign affairs, there is any difficulty in agreeing about this one, and that, in using our moral influence, such as it is—there is not very much left—in not setting these countries again into a turmoil by arming both sides, but by bringing them together in some kind of understanding until a via media is found between them, we shall not add to our moral structure much more than by anything we could do in an idiotic attempt to arm both sides in a struggle that nobody wants?
It is true that this State is in a precarious condition. It is surrounded by declared enemies, and it is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to stand at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons in London and tell the people in Tel Aviv that they need not worry about the fact that all the States round them are their declared enemies, because they do not mean it. They will think that they do mean it until they say that they do not. Surrounded in that way, by declared enemies, they have now lost the diplomatic support of, or diplomatic relations with, the countries which, for their own purposes, no doubt, supported them in the difficult years before the establishment of the State, and when we, no doubt for our contrary purposes, were opposing them, and so they will regard themselves as completely isolated, with a ring of enemies around them, with the Western bloc, represented by this country, supplying that ring of enemies with the most powerful weapons at their command, and with no other friends anywhere in the world.
This is not politics; this is not statesmanship; this is not being alive to the important events of our time, and making sure that something constructive survives and grows out of the difficulties of the times. This is to do just what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says was the wrong thing to do—to heighten the fear of insecurity, to heighten suspicions and fears, to make more precarious what is precarious already, and to increase tension. Nothing will be lost by abandoning this policy, at any rate until the time


comes when a series of treaties in the Middle East could be made.
I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: let the Government beware how far they think that this is aiding the purpose and objective of peace in the world, or the interests of this country, merely by inflaming and exaggerating and finding new causes for fear and insecurity in this part of the world. Let them stop it, and, instead, devote all their efforts to the pacification of this area as a beginning to the pacification of the rest of the world.

4.44 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I am sure that the whole House listened to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with great interest. Undoubtedly, he made what I would call a very sincere speech, but I find it difficult to follow some of his arguments.
Ever since Israel came into being, that country has had an air force. Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that Israel should disband its air force completely? I do not think he is. It was not very long ago that Israel was supplied with 30 or 40 Spitfires from Czechoslovakia which shot down British aircraft and pilots. I do not want to go into the details, because it is only bringing back old history, but, if Israel can defend itself and become part of collective defence, then its air force must be kept modern and up to date.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am not suggesting that Israel should disband its air force, and, if it had not been for those Spitfires, there never would have been an air force at all. I am suggesting that it is nonsense to talk of collective security in that area until the different parts of that area are at peace with one another.

Air Commodore Harvey: We have been assured by the Minister of State that the position is not as bad as some people make it out to be, and I quite agree that, if we can lessen the tension, it may well improve, but with the world situation as it is today, particularly in the Middle East, this country and all the Western Powers are bound to do everything they can to see that those countries play their proper part in maintaining peace, and the only way to maintain peace, in my belief, is to be well armed.
I came to this House today very unhappy about this debate, but I feel more reassured now by what my right hon. and learned Friend could not tell us how many aircraft were involved in this deal. It will only be a matter of a few weeks and we shall see photographs of these jet aircraft in the technical papers, and in Egyptian and other papers, so why cannot we be told how many there are? I remember that, in a debate on a similar matter regarding Centurion tanks in November, 1950, the figure was given quite freely as 16. I recall that there was no secret about it, and I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, if he cares to get into his motor car and drive past the airfield where the aircraft are assembled, he could see some of them with Egyptian markings and would be able to count them. I think the House is entitled to know, if not the actual price, how many aircraft are involved.
I want to say that, looking back over 20 or 30 years, Britain taught Egypt to fly, not only military but civil aircraft, and helped in establishing routes which have considerably assisted the economy not only of Egypt but of practically all countries in the Middle East, in the speeding up and improvement of public communications. We had an official mission there for many years under Air Vice-Marshal—now Sir Victor—Tait.
Do not let us sell the very latest equipment, because, if some of this equipment is later than the type of equipment in our squadrons today, I should not feel very happy about it, because even our auxiliary squadrons which are front line units should have the very latest equipment which is available to them. If any Middle East country is to be given later equipment than that of our own forces, I think that would be wrong. If it is a question merely of training the Israeli air force, surely that could be done with older aircraft, and not the latest types, which could follow on later.
I am quite certain that if we do not sell aircraft to Egypt or Israel, other countries will. For instance, let us consider the United States in regard to the question of Spain. I do not want to get involved in this matter, because I know there are very strong feelings on both sides of the House, but, however much we may criticise General Franco, there are 30 million proud people in Spain, and we


have supplied them with very few arms. The United States has had a mission over 100 strong there for 12 or 18 months, in Madrid.. and they are about to sell equipment with which we could have supplied them. We really had an opportunity there, without condoning the actions of Franco in any way, but it may be lost forever; I do not know. When we think of our need to export in order to survive, we must bear in mind that those markets count in the struggle.
I should like to be told by my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate how Egypt will pay for these aircraft. Will it be done out of sterling balances built up during the war, when we saved Egypt from destruction, or are we to be given cash or cotton? I think the House would like an assurance about the method of payment.
Sooner or later, I feel, with the improvements in relations with Egypt which are being made today——whether we agree with the method of the treaty of independence for the Sudan or not— there will be law and order in the Middle East, provided there is not world aggression from the Soviet Union. I believe that we are right to be patient and to help them economically. If they feel it right to build up their military forces, we should help them to do so. Allowing Britain, after all these decades, to fall out and other countries to take up the task would be a grave error.
The hon. Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Ernest Davies), then UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in the House on 22nd November, 1950,
 … nor do we look upon Egypt as a potential aggressor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1950; Vol. 481, c. 457.]
It was only a few months later that Egyptian troops and British troops were fighting in the Suez area. I do not want to go into that, but the position since then has changed considerably. The King of Egypt has gone. General Neguib. whether we agree with him in some respects or not, is an improvement. We have seen some law and order brought into the affairs of the Middle East.
I think the House must be broadminded on all these matters because, although these are matters of principle which are important, we must neverthe-

less look at the broad picture. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will, as he said this afternoon, supply equipment to the countries concerned. provided that he is satisfied that the relations between Israel and Egypt are improving, provided that we shall be paid for the equipment in the proper way and not out of a debt built up during the war, when we saved Egypt.
I hope we shall be paid in cash or by means of barter and that we shall be allowed to send instructors and missions out there. It is far better to be in and to help than to be outside and not know what is going on. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will see this deal through, but will also satisfy himself that the type of equipment is not required by the Royal Air Force.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: If I may say so, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has raised some interesting points and, in particular, I hope he gets an answer to his question about how Egypt will pay for these planes.
I do not think anyone will disagree with him when he urges that we should approach the matter in a broad-minded spirit. For my part, I want to turn to the six rather quick questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said were particularly relevant. Like the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I cannot but feel that the economic points which he raised are trivial. Like the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), I looked up the very powerful speech which the Prime Minister made in July, 1951, in which he deployed most forceful arguments against supplying arms to Egypt. I found no sign in that speech that he was concerned about what would happen to British industry it we did not send a cruiser and various other arms.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman put three other questions which seemed to me to be of far greater importance. One was the point that if we did not supply these aircraft somebody else would do so. I appreciate that that is important, but I am by no means convinced that, if it is the wrong thing to do, we


should nevertheless do it because otherwise somebody else would do it instead. Furthermore, I find the argument inconsistent with the other point which he made when he said that this is a small matter involving only one or two planes. If it is a very small matter and if only one or two planes are to be sent to Egypt, then presumably the Egyptians will not be satisfied with only one or two planes but, having learned to fly jet aircraft, will turn to other sources to get more.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the type of planes sent was not an offensive type. Nowadays it is almost impossible to make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. Indeed, I believe that certain of the attacks made by Israel were made with fighter planes. The vital questions are; what use will be made of the planes? And will their delivery increase the tension; in fact, what will be the effect of this sale on opinion in the Near East, the Middle East, and, indeed, all over the world? We know that there is still war between Egypt and Israel, and surely any country which supplies arms in time of war to countries which consider themselves to be combatants runs a very serious risk. In the old days, objection was rightly taken to the unfettered private supply of arms, but I think that the position is even worse in some ways when arms are supplied with the express permission of Governments; that is even more dangerous because it involves an act of policy by the country which supplies them.
In a situation such as that which exists in the Middle East, the question is bound to be asked; against whom are these arms to be used? The right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to us not to raise the tension by asking these awkward questions, but they are being asked already, and are bound to be asked, not least by Israel. We know that the United Nations have deplored the possibility of an arms race, and I should have thought that a very heavy responsibility would rest on this country, as a member of the United Nations, if we in any way even seemed to encourage it. The fact that we supplied arms to Israel as well as to the Arabs is certainly no argument on that point; it merely increases the tension on both sides.
Like the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, I cannot see why the number of aircraft is so secret. I believe the number is fairly well known and I do not think it is denied that, if we take the Arab League as a whole, they are receiving far more aircraft than are Israel. I must say that I, too, feel that the Government could have made one more really serious effort at least to relieve the tension in the Middle East if not to achieve a peace treaty. They should also have done something more to help over the problem of the Arab refugees which, quite apart from the human aspect, is serious enough as a continual potential source of explosion. Until such steps are taken, the present policy seems contrary to the declaration of May, 1950.
If we look beyond the question of Israel-Arab relations, the fact remains that when we sell arms abroad we are entitled to know how our own interests are affected. To my mind, our prime interests are quite clear. I do not think this sale of aircraft has any industrial importance to this country at all. We stand for peace. We have no unfulfilled ambitions in the Middle East or anywhere else. But we also stand for the defence of the free world. How does this transaction help in maintaining peace or in the defence of the free world?
Until quite recently I do not think anyone, particularly on the other side of the House, would have pretended that the Egyptians have been particularly friendly towards this country. Dr. Johnson, I think, once said that it was very rude to quote a man's words against him, and, therefore, I will not do so, but, of course, there are many statements not only in the previous debate by the present Prime Minister but in another debate, started, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and in other places, in which the Conservative Party, rightly in my view, protested again and again against the sale of arms to Egypt, particularly at a time when Egypt had piled up these immense sterling balances against us. The Conservatives pleaded eloquently against allowing them to have unrequited exports from this country to which they had become entitled as a result of our efforts to save them in the war.
I welcome the better relations which now appear to be growing between this country and General Neguib. Certainly, the Sudan Agreement is a success for Her Majesty's Foreign Minister. But it cannot be denied that the Egyptians share in the honours of the agreement and that they have not come out of it entirely empty handed. Are we on the verge of a wider agreement that, to my mind, alone would justify this sale? If Her Majesty's Government can really assure the House that we are going to have a release of tension throughout the Middle East and are to have a lasting agreement over the Canal—possibly on a Four-Power basis—then a strong argument could be made for not throwing sand into the wheels of negotiation by holding up this sale.
We have to remember that not only we in this country attach very great importance to the area and to the Canal Zone. People at the far end of the Canal have, in some ways, a greater interest in it than we have. I find that very great interest in the future of this whole area is expressed in Australia and New Zealand. They are vitally interested, not only because their main transport routes pass through the area, but for psychological reasons. They would indeed feel cut off if they thought that we were settling the fate of that region, and possibly abandoning it, without consultation with them.
Are the Government in touch with and in consultation with the rest of the Commonwealth over the Middle East? Are they in touch not only with Australia and New Zealand. but with India? I appreciate that this matter now before the House concerns comparatively few aircraft, but I cannot help thinking that it may be an indication of the way in which the mind of the Government is moving for it ranks as an act of policy. In that sense it may be of great importance not only to this country but for a great area the whole way from Cyprus to Korea and out to the Pacific.
If we are on the verge of a general settlement, I think that no one would dispute that it would be worth letting the Egyptians have these aircraft, but if we are not we may dismay Israel who is a most useful ally and a possible supplier of alternative bases if the need for such should be forced upon us. We may also

raise doubts in Australia and New Zealand and jeopardise our position throughout the Far East.
As I say, this may be a small matter when reckoned in aircraft, but it may also be a straw in the wind, and such straws were not entirely unnoticed before the war when we were faced with a threat to peace similar to that which faces us today. It may possibly have a disturbing effect upon the confidence which our allies and the countries of the Middle East have in us and which it is in our interest to encourage and not upset.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I feel a great deal of uneasiness about the Government's decision to continue this sale of jet aircraft to the nations of the Middle East. I feel that it is most unwise to put these dangerous weapons in the hands of nations in a very troubled part of the world, and I cannot help thinking that it is not the best way to preserve peace in that area. I also feel, with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), that the repeated statements by successive Egyptian Governments that they intend to force us out of the Canal Zone makes the possession of jet aircraft by Egypt even more undesirable.
However much we may dislike the methods by which the State of Israel was created and, set up, that State in fact exists and we recognise it. Furthermore, Egypt claims to be at war with the State of Israel. I feel that to supply aircraft to belligerents on either side will intensify the dangers of that situation and certainly will not make things any better. I would not set myself up as a judge of the merits of Israel and the Arab States, but I feel that it may well be that in the course of time a strong and stable Israel will he the greatest force for peace in the Middle East.
The Minister of State made a number of extremely interesting and powerful points. The first three questions which he posed related almost entirely to economic arguments. I cannot recognise their validity when we are deciding what seems to me a question of right or wrong; and I do not believe that the sale of these aircraft will make all that difference to our aircraft industry.
My right hon. and learned Friend posed the question whether these aircraft would be used for aggressive purposes. I do not profess to know, but the fact remains that if nobody had these aircraft they could not be used for aggressive purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend also asked whether someone else would supply these aircraft if we did not. Here I am bound to agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that for us to do something wrong first for fear of somebody else doing it afterwards is not a very right attitude.
Then we are asked whether these aircraft would increase the tension in the Middle East. They cannot possibly decrease that tension, and I cannot accept the argument that they are needed for internal security. How jet aircraft arc used for internal security, I do not profess to know. It has been said that Israel would not receive any at all if this sale were stopped. That is true, but would not Israel feel more secure if nobody had these aircraft than if she received them and other nations, potential or actual enemies, each had them in equal number?
I am not swayed by the economic arguments. On the other hand, I must admit that I am very greatly influenced by the argument used that if we stop this sale we would be breaking our treaty and contractual agreements. That we must not do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not profess to know the terms of the contract, but what disturbs me is that I doubt whether we can be paid for these aircraft by Israel or any other country in the Middle East which is acquiring them. I am sure that Israel cannot afford to buy them and I do not believe that the Arab States can afford to do so either. The money which they propose to spend in this way could be better spent on more peaceful and constructive programmes. Nevertheless, I suppose that the contract, having been made, must be fulfilled.
If we have to go through with this sale of jet aircraft, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to be rather more lenient towards the new State in the matter of loans for constructive purposes. If the contract has to be fulfilled, so much the worse. I would not advocate the repudiation of contracts for one moment, but I hope that if this

contract is carried out it will never be renewed.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I am sorry to take away from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) the one cheer which he gathered when he said that we were under an obligation to observe our contractual agreement. I do not believe for a single moment that if it had suited the policy of the Government that these aircraft should not go to Egypt they would have gone there. In July, 1951, when the present Prime Minister protested in the House about the supply of the Hunt class destroyer "Cottesmore" there was no discussion about a contractual agreement.
I do not think that the contractual agreement is the reason. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was not very near the target when he talked about the jets being supplied in order to build up the military security of the Middle East. Our interest there is in terms of a base. That is what we keep saying, and we do not strengthen our case if we allow it to be thought that we are interested in the Suez area as a base on one day and in the military strength of the Middle East Powers the next day.
The fact is that we are interested in the base. The Minister of State would have done far better to have told the House that the reason we have supplied these jet aircraft to Egypt, Israel and Syria is that we have a very weak Foreign Secretary who is in a very weak position not only in the Middle East but in his own party. He is under attack from all angles. The fact is that the Foreign Office had to give way to the blandishments and arguments put forward by the Minister of Supply last December.
Last autumn the Government decided to cut back the armaments programme. The result was that a number of our aircraft firms were in very great difficulties. and, as the production of the new types of aircraft was two years ahead, some way had to be found to take up the slack. The Gloster Aircraft Company which manufactured the Meteor had to stand off about 1,200 men. The Ministry of Supply then came along and said there was a long-term contract for Meteors. If


the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell the House what is the figure, I will do it for him. I understand that an arrangement has been entered into with Israel whereby they are to get 14 Meteors —and the Syrians and Egyptians will also get 14 each. So the Gloster Company have been able to keep their production going until such time as they get their new production started.
The shocking thing is that any idea that there is any moral basis behind our action has been thrown out of the window. While it may be that the supply of 14 Meteors to three States in the Middle East does not upset the balance of military power, it means that the State of 1srael have to find about £1 million. That is my estimate. I arrive at it by assuming that a Meteor costs about £50,000 and that another £30,000 will be needed for spares. That makes a figure of over £1 million for 14 Meteors.
Israel cannot find £1 million unless they scrape the barrel. They will be spending £1 million for obsolescent aircraft which they pray to God they will never have to use. That money should be spent upon tractors. This sort of thing does not add to our strength in the Middle East or to the respect with which we are regarded by Egypt, Syria or Israel. Indeed, it adds to the loathing and contempt with which this country is regarded throughout that area. That is the basic fact which we have to recognise.
Hon. Members opposite first started to say these things. If they dispute what I say, let them read what the Prime Minister said about the submissiveness of the Labour Government when they supplied a Hunt class destroyer to Egypt. He talked about it then just as strongly as I am doing now. The fact that must be faced is that sooner or later Israel and the Arab countries have to come to some understanding. In the long run they are either going to beggar themselves or come to an agreement.
I should like to see this country take a lead in bringing them together. We might be able to do so if we would say to these people, "The last things on earth you want are Meteors, Centurion tanks or guns of any kind. You need food. penicillin, drugs, tractors, sanitation and education. Above all, you need to learn the ways of peace in order to form the

foundation upon which a stable order in the Middle East can be built."
The supply of jet aircraft for the reasons which have prompted the Government to supply them has done nothing to add to the prestige of this country. In the past we have often heard the jibes of the party opposite, about wanting to scuttle and seeking to appease; but there is one thing that hon. Members on this side of the House can say, even if hon. Members opposite hold that we are wrong. We believed in what we were doing. But as far as the Government's Middle East policy is concerned, the truth is that the bulk of the party opposite— although they have not the guts to say so—do not believe in that policy—and the Egyptians know that they do not believe in it.
That is why General Neguib made his broadcast yesterday. He was seeking to exploit the weakness of the Government. The Government should either throw the Foreign Secretary out or back him up. They should not let it go abroad that he is speaking for the party opposite if he is not speaking for more than 30 per cent. of them. That plays right into the hands of our opponents not only in the Middle East but all over the world, because they know they have only to make a speech or a broadcast which the party opposite do not like for their point of view to be met following a Tory Party secret conclave. We also have our differences, but we would sooner have them composed in the light of day than behind closed doors.
The spectacle we have had today, of the Minister of State, speaking like his master's voice and not believing a word of it and not telling the House the elementary facts of the situation—is touching bottom as far as the foreign policy of this country is concerned, not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.

5.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: If there is one man who can be trusted to lower the tone of a debate and to cast party aspersions in every direction, it is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If there is one man who does not understand the rudiments of any subject he touches, it is the hon. Member for Dudley and if there is one


man who, with unctuous hyprocrisy, lectures the House on the sins which he thinks the House are committing when all the time he is committing those sins himself, it is the hon. Member for Dudley.
He has attacked the Foreign Secretary in unmeasured terms. We repudiate altogether those attacks. He has said that the policy which has been brought forward had been instigated by the Minister of Supply and was not in any way supported by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We repudiate that, and so does the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Supply. The spokesman of the Foreign Secretary has addressed the House and has commended the course of action which Her Majesty's Government are taking.
By what right does the hon. Member for Dudley venture to suggest that all this is said by somebody who does not believe it, and is in fact a betrayal of the Foreign Secretary himself? This is the sort of thing that brings debates in this House into justifiable ridicule from the country as a whole. Indeed, if anything could bring about the loathing and contempt for this country which the hon. Member has just suggested, it is the kind of speech he has just delivered, if it is taken seriously by a single person either inside or outside this House.
I speak as one who has always supported the case of Israel, even when it was not as popular as it is now. I speak as one who, at the time of Israel's troubles, actually visited that country. I was there before recognition de jure took place, and just after the remarkable series of battles by which Israel won their very existence—the series of battles in which they conquered much stronger forces on all sides and, more particularly, after the unfortunate series of aerial engagements in which Israeli airmen— as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will remember—had actually been in conflict with the R.A.F. and had shot down some of our planes.
There was certainly no exultation about that. There was sorrow, depression and gloom in Israel over that successful engagement, because they felt that they were somehow or other in conflict with

those whom they greatly admired and, in many cases, personally loved. In spite of that, I say that what we are now discussing is the relatively minor problem of the delivery of a small number of aircraft under conditions in which that delivery is guaranteed both by contract and treaty. The question is whether we should break that contract and treaty.
Has a case been made for breaking them? I do not think so. It may well be that we shall find ourselves in a much more active opposition to certain Powers in the Middle East than we are today. If so, let it be on a great issue and an important point that we find ourselves at loggerheads.

Mr. S. Silverman: But let us arm them first.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has listened to all the speeches and is well acquainted with the situation. I do not like to throw in his teeth the suggestion that it was his Government which armed them first, though I should be entitled to do so.

Mr. Silverman: That would not matter to me.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I know it would not matter to the hon. Gentleman, who adopts a mood of Olympian detachment in all these things. But there are only two Division Lobbies in this House the Ayes and the Noes—and the hon. Gentleman supported his Government while they were carrying out that action.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, though lie says I am actuated by Olympian detachment, it is the duty of all hon. Members, if they conscientiously believe a thing to be wrong, to vote against it even if their own Government are doing it. I opposed this sort of thing when my own Government did it at least as strongly as I oppose it this afternoon.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I paid testimony to the hon. Member in the matter. I grant he did so; I only said that he extended his powerful general support to that Government.
He knows as well as I do that what a Government marks is not whether a Member kicks over the traces now and again, but whether he persistently pulls


against the weight of the party all the time. The hon. Member is well known not only as a loyal member of his party, but as a powerful supporter of his administration. I do not wish to be led away by these side issues. This is not the first Government that armed the Power in question, and the present Government have every right to say that when they are accused, as they have just been accused by the hon. Member, of doing so.
The question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) concerning the supply of arms by our nation to other countries is a very important question. I have always been very dubious about the argument brought forward by many right hon. and hon. Members against anything but nationalised arms industries because of this very problem. Eventually, if all arms were nationalised, every sale of any weapon to any country would he a national act, and we are now beginning to come to that difficult position. It will raise a large set of new problems of which we have not yet begun to see the end. But this is not the time or place to discuss that very important question.
We are discussing whether a running contract should be broken. Surely, there are enough difficulties in the world just now without bringing in this extra one of the immediate breaking of contracts. There are huge questions coming up for decision, questions which will be made none the easier by the questions and answers we have heard today. Many of the speeches seemed to me to leave out altogether the complication which has been brought to the situation by the questions and answers we have heard today.
Let us consider the only matters which it is worth-while definitely discussing in connection with such decisive steps as the breaking of existing contracts. These are steps which are well known in international diplomacy. They are steps of very great importance. Only the intention to proceed to further steps will justify the breaking off of a supply of weapons to a country. In some ways, they are just as important as, and in others more important than, the breaking off of diplomatic relations themselves. Let us hesitate once, twice and three times before we take such great steps on so small an issue.
The House of Commons will have many problems to review in connection with this area, and that review may have to take place in the days immediately ahead. This is not a question to exalt into that enormously important position. No case has been made for breaking the contracts already made. Nobody has suggested that it will alter the balance of power in that area. Neither has anyone suggested that it could be taken as anything except as a symbolic act. Symbolic of what?

Mr. Barnett Janner: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is being very unrealistic in this matter. I know him to be an old supporter of the Zionist and the Israel cause, and I am sure he would not wish to mislead the House. But is not he aware of the fact that in Article 103 of the Charter there is the following passage:
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
In view of the fact that Egypt and other Arab countries say that they are at war with one member of the United Nations, does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that his argument is not quite right?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With respect to the hon. Gentleman—and we have often been on the same side of the argument before does not he see that that argument might have held before this policy had been entered into but only then? Does he suggest that the state of war has only arisen within the last few weeks or months? I was there when the state of war was actually in full blast, and it was still in active operation when these supplies were undertaken and when these contracts were entered into.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can get out of it like that. No new factor has arisen to justify the invoking of the clause to which he referred. This would mean a new unilateral act undertaken for some specific purpose. At least, that is my reading of it. I say that such a unilateral act would carry with it implications far beyond any which this House would desire to attach to it at this time. Therefore I support the Government.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I am sorry that for the first time in many years, going back, I believe, as far as 1931, I find myself on this particular subject at variance with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who has done much towards helping the small State of Israel first to create itself and then to preserve itself in its present form. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has really made a very big mistake in this matter of the contracts, and I should like to answer him and also the Minister of State on that point.
To begin with, the contracts to which reference is being made have not yet been specifically quoted in this House. The Minister is fully aware that we as loyal Members of the United Nations have no right to continue to supply arms under the present contracts. He knows very well that the question of the supply of arms has been under consideration before this and that such arms have not been supplied at times for the very reasons that have been given today.
This is an extremely important debate —perhaps one of the most important that we shall have in this Parliament. It does not merely rest upon the question of the supply of arms. This is a question of fundamental importance to the honour of this country and for the future of the Middle East, and, perhaps, of the world. It is not just a question of selling a few jet weapons. It is a question of whether, when a State has been created which depends entirely upon its merits, not in arms, but in having brought within its borders men and women who are prepared to use their sweat and toil in order to produce something out of the eroded soil, it is one we support and whether those people are people whom we should support or whether the supply of arms to destroy those people—because that is what it virtually amounts to—is something which should be encouraged.
What is the suggestion here? Cannot the House see? I asked a question of the Minister of State on what is really the material point. He is supplying to a number of Arab States—whether rightly or wrongly, so far as their views are concerned—sufficient planes to destroy in half an hour the whole of Israel.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish unduly to interrupt, but surely of all the forces which are useless in any kind of bombing attack, jet aircraft are the most useless?

Mr. Norman Smith: rose

Mr. Janner: I cannot give way to my hon. Friend for a moment. I cannot answer two people at once. Let me answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman first. Israel itself has enough to do at the present moment to try to stop aggression from without. It has to spend a very considerable amount—it is common knowledge—of its very slender resources to provide forces which will prevent the marauders from coming in—marauders who come in quite frequently over the border, who kill, who thieve—[Interruption.]—oh, yes— from Jordan. I can give the figures for the last 12 months which will satisfy the House on that account. It has to spend a large sum of money for that purpose that ought to be spent on economic development.
It is vulnerable from the air. It is certainly vulnerable to jet planes. Jet planes are not merely going to fly over the country for the pleasure of seeing the country. I say that the provision of planes of this description, of the latest design—or almost the latest design—is an outrage. It is an outrage to allow those who openly declare themselves at war with another State to have an advantage which will place them in a position quite different from that in which they were before that supply. This small number of determined people in Israel, with much less arms, had to face enemies thought to be in a position to destroy that small State. That is precisely what we are talking about now.
The Minister of State talked about the economics of the position. I really think that was a bit steep. "After all," said the Minister, "it only concerns a few planes. What are we talking about? Just a few jet planes. They cannot do any damage, but they can produce such stability to our economic position that it is important that we should send those planes out." He cannot have it both ways. He has got to make up his mind. Are those planes of some importance financially? If so, are we not committing


a criminal offence—yes, I say "criminal offence" deliberately—if we allow that consideration to be used against the moral question of supplying planes of this nature to injure a State which is a friendly State and not a belligerent one?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I think it is right that he should appreciate as a matter of historical fact that the Israeli Government had already approached Her Majesty's Government with a view to buying jets before any decision was reached to release them to any of these Arab States.

Mr. Janner: I have no objection to that statement. None at all. The Minister knows why, because he knows very well that Israel is not in the position and has not the desire to start any aggressive action—nor could it possibly do so with the few jets the right hon. and learned Gentleman would supply to it. But that point is not at issue here. The point at issue here is that he is going to supply to each individual opponent of Israel which declares itself to be in a state of war with Israel an equal number
each of those States to that which he is supplying to Israel, and I say that that is a matter which has got to be taken into account.

Mr. Norman Smith: Will my hon. Friend allow me now?

Mr. Janner: Certainly.

Mr, Norman Smith: Will my hon. Friend please explain to the House whether he comes here in order to speak for the working men and women of Leicester who put him in, or for the Israeli State?

Mr. Janner: I speak for the working men and women of Leicester who put me here, because I am quite satisfied that Leicester, which knows the facts, would endorse what I have to say on this matter. It is important as much to Leicester as it is to any other constituency in this country, because it is a moral issue, and it is an issue important in so far as the continuance of our own status in the world is concerned, and I am just as much concerned with that as is my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith).
I think that one may perhaps be permitted to refer once again to the

clauses of the Agreement, which have been referred to already by the Minister and by other Members. Clause 2 of that Agreement says:
The three Governments declare that assurances have been received from all the States in question that the purchasing State does not infend to undertake any aggression against any other State. Similar assurances will be expected from any State in the area to which they permit arms to be supplied in the future.
The Minister knows very well—yes, as well as I do—that no assurance which is given by those to whom he is going to supply those planes—the Arab States —can be acceptable in the circumstances because they have declared they are still at war with Israel.
With regard to the other clauses of the Tripartite Agreement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman also knows that they do not help him because he will remember that the Egyptian representative, Mr. Fawzi, for example, at a meeting of the Security Council, at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was probably present, in September, 1951, said:
The Egyptian-Israeli Joint Armistice Agreement did not include any provision on the termination of the legal or technical state of war between the two States; nor did any international law in its principles or in its practice deny a country its belligerent rights, before any peace settlement is concluded.
In Egypt's recent note to the West German Government, in November, 1952, there was a statement that the Federal Republic was rendering to a State with which Egypt was at war certain assistance.
The reply from the Government in this matter is not a satisfactory one—not from the point of view of Britain's interests and not from the point of view of our place in the United Nations. I beg the Minister to reconsider the position. He has been appealed to already. It is not a matter of material importance to us in this country, financially or economically, whether these planes are supplied. That, as he knows very well, is too small to count at all.
What is important is that he should use his utmost endeavours as, indeed, he commenced to do at the recent meeting of the Assembly—to see that peace shall be established between the Arab States and Israel. He knows that that is essential. When that has been done he can


consider the question of supplying arms to those States, because at least he will know that they will not be used for warfare against each other. He should also remember that these arms are certainly not needed for internal defence by any of these countries. Nor are they needed for the purpoes of general Middle East defence, because, as he knows very well, every appeal made in that regard has been ignored.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) in great detail. I will only say that to suggest to the House that the supply of a dozen fighter aircraft to Egypt will lead to the complete destruction of Israel is, to my mind, quite fantastic.
I am impressed by the argument advanced this afternoon that if we do not supply jet aircraft to Egypt, somebody else will. After what has happened in the last few days in Israel, Egypt may be faced with the problem of getting an adequate supply of jet aircraft; and she would, of course, get them from that country to the east of Europe which is causing so much difficulty at the moment. We all know that she would be able to get them from that country, because at a critical moment in the development of jet aircraft in the world all our jet aircraft secrets were exposed to Russia so that she could get on with setting up her own industry for this purpose.
Discussing the supply of arms to another country is always difficult, but it is new to me that we should never supply arms to one country unless we are prepared to supply an equal number of the same arms to another country. We have certainly never done that in the past. When the Argentine Government was getting difficult in South America, we supplied her with aircraft, but we did not supply her opponents.
On every occasion upon which we are exporting arms, two considerations must he borne in mind. The first is: Are we certain that we have a better weapon in the hands of the men in our Forces than that of which we are disposing? There is no doubt whatever about that in the supplying of these jet aircraft. I understand that the Meteor aircraft which

are being disposed of to Egypt have Derwent engines, which are completely out of date. That is a quite different situation from that obtaining when we disposed of certain engines to Russia during the 1945–50 Parliament. The engines we disposed of to Russia were Nene engines, which were in short supply to the Royal Air Force, and which even today are being used in that Service. The present situation bears no comparison with that state of affairs because we are disposing of aircraft engined by out-ofdate, obsolescent, if not obsolete, engines.
The second important consideration which I venture to suggest the House should always bear in mind when entering into transactions of this nature is this: Are we increasing their military potential, from a manufacturing point of view, in disposing of the particular weapon to another country? That is not so in the case of Egypt. There is no possibility whatever of Egypt setting up an industry to manufacture jet engines of the Derwent or Nene type. That, again, is quite a different situation from that when we disposed of Derwent and Nene engines to Russia four or five years ago. Then we were sellmg engines to a highly industrialised country capable of mass producing those engines. Indeed, all the evidence appears to point to the fact that those engines are now in mass production, and in use in the Korean theatre.
Those are the two points I wish to leave in the minds of hon. Members. I do not believe that we have done anything to help build up an industry in Egypt—that is quite out of the question— whereas, in the case of Russia, we certainly helped her. Indeed, I believe that we disclosed our manufacturing processes to her. Secondly, we are not disposing of aircraft with an engine as good as those used in the Royal Air Force today. With those two considerations in mind, I venture to suggest that the interests of this country have not been injured in any way by the sale of these aircraft to Egypt.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I shall be very brief. I desire to say only this. I hope there will not be a Division after this debate. I think that the spectacle of the House of Commons dividing on this subject would be nauseating. If there is a Division, I am


not taking part. Neither party has clean hands in this matter. When the Labour Government were in power, selling arms to that part of the world, I used to think there was an element of humbug about the Conservative criticism of that Government. I cannot escape the conclusion that today there is an element of hypocrisy about some of the speeches that have been made from this side of the House. That is all I want to say. I am saying no more.

5.47 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) for having given me a nice preface from which to start. I agree with a good deal of what he has said. I certainly think that today there has been a strange mixture of ideas in the minds of hon. Members about whether or not these are moral or materialistic issues. I should have said that trading in arms must be a materialistic issue.
The hon. Member for Leicester, NorthWest (Mr. Janner) tried to refer to the issue as a high moral one. We may all vary in our opinion about that, because there are varying opinions about whether or not the State of Israel was set up morally or immorally. My own view is that it was an immoral act to dispossess so many Arabs of their homes. Others think that the needs of the Jews outweighed that interest. I do not propose to argue the rights and wrongs of that today.
What I do say is that it is no use anyone here this afternoon supposing that this issue is a high moral one. I am afraid that this is a pretty filthy business. What has happened in the Middle East over the last few years is, I think, generally agreed to have been a most deplorable series of events, and I do not suppose that anything we say now will make them any less deplorable.
I am convinced that it is not possible on this issue to decide whether the Arab States are wholly in the right or whether Israel is wholly in the right. It is a question of a compromise, and a pretty uneasy one at that. Our experience of what has happened ever since we accepted the mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations has been that this is a question of an uneasy compromise. Even

now there is an uneasy compromise about whether the, setting up of the State of Israel was a correct action or a wrong one. We may all have our opinions on that, but I suggest they have no real relevance to this debate today.
This debate is to decide whether a certain agreed number of aircraft should continue to be supplied to various Middle Eastern countries. All those hon. Members opposite who have argued against this process being continued seem to me to have overlooked what I thought was the most powerful point made by the Minister of State in his opening remarks, namely, no matter whether we think it right or wrong, the fact remains that the present Government have been supplying considerably fewer aircraft than the previous Administration arranged for. In fact, the process to my mind is the correct one—that the supply should be cut down.
I think that a great deal of the merits of supply depends on the answer to this question; Do we consider that at the present time the biggest issue is the solution of the refugee problem, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), or do we consider that it is the finding of a peaceful solution between Israel and the Arab States?
I believe myself that we in this country have tended to argue that if only we can solve the refugee problem everything else will flow from that. So far as the Arab countries are concerned, they say that the Arab refugee problem and the rehabilitation of those people cannot be decided until we have finally decided whether the State of Israel is to be permanently at war with them or not.
I should have thought that the real issue is whether the State of Israel is to be permanently at war—on perhaps a cold basis —with the Arab States or not. That is the predominant thing in the minds of the Arab States. Until that problem has been solved, the Arab refugee problem will never be solved so far as the rehabilitation of those people is concerned.
I think that the House knows very well that at the time when we were considering the setting up of the State of Israel, I was one of those of whom it might be possible to say I was entitled now to play the strange role of Pontius


Pilate. I do not intend to do so, because as long as we remain Members of this House we all have an obligation to accept the decision of the majority. I have, however, always said that when the State of Israel was set up there would be an unpeaceful atmosphere in the Middle East, always with the possibility of it leading to war. I also showed that at the time of the setting up of that State Russia was taking a great interest in the future of Israel.
Hon. Members may wonder why it is, in view of the great interest that Russia showed in the State of Israel earlier, she now appears to be taking precisely the opposite view. I ask hon. Members to turn over this possibility in their minds, as to the reason why Russia is pursuing her present policy towards Israel. I believe that she supported Israel in the setting up of that State for one reason and one reason only. She wanted an alternative country with which to bargain with this country in the Middle East, and she deliberately helped to create the State of Israel in order to get that country there. Having got it, what does she do? She then turns the whole sympathy of the world on to that country by persecuting the Jews and comes to the Arab countries as a friend of the Arabs. I believe that lies at the kernel of the whole of this problem which we are discussing today.
What is the point of supplying arms to these countries? I do not believe that anyone can say that my right hon. Friend, or any on this side of the House, want to supply arms to countries in order that they should fight each other in the way visualised by some. What I believe we want—and what I certainly want— is to see the cause which I believe to be right protected as well as may be in the Middle East. Do we or do we not in this House consider that Russia is likely to be a menace in the Middle East? If we do consider that Russia may be a menace in the Middle East at any time, surely one way, judging by history, of making certain that Russia will eventually take advantage of the position is for us to denude all those countries of any arms at all. That really is the issue before us today.
Many believe that Russia is anxious to exert pressure on the Middle East

either by a cold war method or by a hot war method. As long as we cannot answer "No." for certain to the possibility of Russia going on to hot war methods in the Middle East, then so long will it be necessary for us to arm these States, however unfit some of us may think they are to be armed. We must have strength in the Middle East. That is why I say, although I have some misgivings on a moral plane, that on the material plane we cannot avoid facing up to this issue.
Do we want a power vacuum in the Middle East or do we want more strength to stand up against aggression? All that I have said this afternoon, I say knowing full well just how much this has caused me to think on the moral issue, as it has obviously caused other hon. Members to think. I ask them to believe that it is not because I am trying to dodge the moral issue that I have said what I have said today. It is because I believe this to be a material problem which has to be faced up to that I have tried to show what some of these material factors are today.
I believe that the Government themselves have considerable misgiving about this, and I should like to say one word to the Government. I think that there is no surer way to unsettle the peace and security of the Middle East than by our evacuating the Suez Canal Zone. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) touched on this earlier in the debate, and I agree with much that he said. So far as the Suez Canal Zone is concerned, I believe that if we evacuate that area we are increasing the likelihood of the Arab States going into Israel again very markedly.
Of all the stupid ideas I have ever heard is the one which suggests that we should move the whole of our forces in the Suez Canal Zone into Cyprus. Cyprus has not only all the disadvantages which go with an island, but she is within fighter range of the mainland, and we do not yet know whether the mainland will be on our side or the other. I hope that the Government will at least face up to the realities and not play the tragic role which they played over the Sudan, and will face up to the issue of where our interests lie. That is what matters most to me and, I believe, matters most to British people wherever they live. I


believe that we have tried to take everyone's point of view and as a result we have taken none. We have to face up to what we believe to be British interests, because if we believe this country is worth living in then, presumably, we believe it because we believe that the British way of life is worthy of emulation throughout the world.
It is for that reason that I say that in the British interest we should stay in the Canal Zone and that we should make sure that no power vacuum is allowed to arise in the Middle East, because someone else will fill it if we do not.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was making a speech which he had prepared as a contribution to this debate or whether he was attempting to make the speech which he was denied the right to make at a recent private meeting of the Conservative Party, when the Sudan Agreement was revealed to other hon. Members of the House before it was revealed to the rest of the House of Commons. Certainly his speech today would have been more apposite on that occasion.
As to the main part of his remarks in relation to what we are discussing today, it seemed to me that they were answered in advance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). If it is true that the main consideration about this matter that we must bear in mind is the effect that it will have on policies being pursued by the Soviet Government, or policies which they would like to pursue, surely there is nothing that the Soviet Government would like to see more than an increase of tension in the Middle East.
The whole of the case put by many hon. Members on this side of the House and by many hon. Members on the other side during the debate is precisely that this action will increase tension in the Middle East. The action recently taken by the Soviet Government is a further reason why we should restrain the Government from continuing along this course. In the rest of his speech the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to agree with the commendably brief speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). I see

the hon. and gallant Gentleman nodding his head.
We all know the views that both hon. Members have expressed in this House on Middle Eastern issues, and I am sure that they hold their views sincerely, but both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and my hon. Friend, throughout all our discussions on the Middle East, have been violently opposed to the State of Israel, violently opposed to the whole idea of a Jewish National Home and passionately in support of what they consider to be the Arab cause. It is interesting that, apart from the speech of the Minister of State, the only two speeches we have had openly in favour of the policy which is being pursued by the Government have been delivered by hon. Members who, throughout their careers in this House, have been passionately opposed to the State of Israel. That is a significant fact.
The Government cannot be very well pleased about the other speeches which have been delivered in their defence. Every speech from the Opposition has opposed the Government and there have also been three or four speeches from the Government side of the House opposing the Government's action. The only extensive defence of the Government was attempted by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman sometimes speaks in terms of paradoxes and the more paradoxical his speech becomes the more certain one is paradoxes, and the more paradoxical his that he has a bad case to defend.
If there is anything in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, if the whole of his case is based on the belief that it is absolutely wrong to break contracts of this nature once they have been entered into and if he is so brave a Parliamentarian as he led us to believe in his speech, why did he not deliver that speech on a previous occasion when a Labour Government was sending arms to the Middle East? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not then say how monstrous it would be to break the contract. I do not think we need pay very much attention to his intervention. He was trying to do what he has probably been practising in some of the private meetings of the Conservative Party, to come to the rescue of the Foreign Secretary, and none of us will deny that the Foreign Secretary is in need of that.
I turn now to what the Minister of State said in defence of this action. We are entitled to take his defence of what has been done rather than that given by other hon. Members. A number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), have already drawn attention to a strange remark made by the Minister of State, that if we did not supply these arms to the Middle East States, other countries would do so. The Minister of State made a most surprising additional comment. He suggested that if other countries would have come in and supplied the Middle Eastern States with these arms, instead of the matter being directed by Britain, it might be directed by countries who have not the same subtle, brilliant knowledge of the Middle East always shown by the Foreign Office. He commented that an appalling catastrophe would befall the Middle East if the matter were to be dealt with by some other country which had not our long tradition of matchless, triumphant diplomatic success.
I take a different view about the tradition of the Foreign Office in these matters. The Foreign Office ought to be modest about the Middle East. In the past six or seven years everything the Foreign Office has proposed about the Middle East has come unstuck. What has happened in the Middle East is entirely different from what successive Permanent Secretaries have, presumably, advised Foreign Ministers was likely to take place. This is a tall claim to make, but I should say that there is no subject on which the Foreign Office has been more consistently wrong than the affairs of the Middle East. They gave the wrong advice to the previous Government, and I am sorry to say that the previous Government took it. They are now giving the wrong advice to the present Government, and what some of us are trying to do is to bring this procedure to an end. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said that he himself, or others—I was not quite sure of the distinction—were not going to embark upon polemical reminiscence.

Mr. Dalton: I said that I would not do so.

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend employed a masterly restraint. He showed

his usual wisdom. However, particularly when charges of hypocrisy are made from both sides of the House. some of us are entitled to say that we were opposed to the sending of arms to the Middle East when it was done by a previous Government.
It is not impressive to us for the Minister of State to say that we are now selling fewer arms to the Middle East than we did in 1950 when the Labour Government were in office. Some of us believed that the whole procedure of sending arms to the Middle East was wrong and in 1950 we brought it to a halt for a while. That is a further answer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove. This is restarting a process which was stopped. This action has not been going on all the time. This is restarting the procedure of selling arms to the Middle Eastern countries while many of them are still formally in a state of war and actually in a state of great tension. This is restarting the process in circumstances of great difficulty and confusion. Therefore, some of us are trying to do what many did when the Labour Government were sending arms to those countries; we are trying to bring it to a stop
I do not know whether all the representatives of the Foreign Office have now left the Chamber. At all events, I cannot see one there. Perhaps they have gone to look up what the policy of the Foreign Office was in these matters. Until they return, I will fill in the time by telling the House what it was, though we ought to have at least one representative of the Foreign Office here, especially as I referred earlier to matters relating particularly to the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office representatives packed up altogether we should be very pleased. If we could only have a similar clearance of some of the Middle Eastern advisers to the Foreign Office we should be even more pleased. The Minister of State who made the speech is absent, the Foreign Secretary, who listened to it, has now cleared off, and the Joint UnderSecretary has now cleared off. Perhaps they are scuttling. I think that is the right word.
The arguments put forward by the Mimster of State were appallingly contradictory, and if they were not contradictory they were highly menacing. I believe they were both highly menacing


and appallingly contradictory. It was first said that very few planes were being supplied. Next we were given the economic argument that the sale of planes could play an important part in solving our balance of payments problem. The statement was made that if we were to earn our living in the world we must sell arms abroad, and we were told that we were looking for markets in that area, and it was emphasised how difficult and dangerous it would be if we forfeited those markets. That was drawing a picture not of a small trickle of arms which was to be kept to a trickle, but of how we were going ahead to build up the markets and make a further contribution towards the solution of our balance of payments problem.
I am glad to see that the Joint UnderSecretary has returned to the Chamber. I am sure he would not want me to repeat everything I have said. He will be able to find out tomorrow what I have said.
The argument of the Minister of State was contradictory. All hon. Members who heard it will agree that no one could set any store by the economic arguments which were presented. The stronger one allowed the economic arguments to be, the weaker became the latter part of the Minister's case when he said that the number of planes was so small that they could not be used for any effective action against British troops or the Israelites or anyone else in the Middle East. At the beginning of his speech he spoke of very few planes, a trickle; in the middle of his speech it became a mighty flood to solve our balance of payments problem; and by the end of his speech it was a trickle again. This is the picture left by the six reasons which were given by the Minister of State. I am coming to the seventh which he did not mention at all.
He did not deal with the relevant point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), although he said that he would deal with it. The Minister of State did not deal with the question of parity, nor did he touch upon the gross advantage allowed under these arrangements to the Arab States. Having failed to do that, it is quite useless for the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove to come

along later and say it was just a symbolic act. It is something more than that.
While the Minister of State gave us quite inadequate reasons for what was done, he did not give us the real reason. My suggestion as to the real reason why this action was taken, particularly when we take into account the time when it was restarted, was that it was a decision by Her Majesty's Government or the Foreign Office—always the possessor of mysterious knowledge about the Arab States—to discover ways in which we could ease the agreement that we wanted to make with Egypt and other Arab States. In other words, it was an act of appeasement towards the Arab States in general, and towards Egypt in particular.
I am not saying that that might necessarily be a reason for a criticism of it. One of the disservices which Conservative Government policy before the war did not merely to this country but to the English language was to degrade the word "appeasement." Some acts of appeasement are right and justified, some are incorrect and immoral. Here the course adopted by the Foreign Office— it always thinks in terms of appeasements —was to argue in this fashion: "If we can sell these arms it may have some effect somehow—we are not quite sure how it will work out in easing the kind of agreement we want to make with Egypt later."
I believe —and I have as much right to talk of this as the Foreign Office; sometimes I have been right, whereas they have always been wrong—that the psychology of the Arab States works differently. I am entirely in favour of the Agreement made by the Foreign Secretary about the Sudan. I hope that he will stick to it, and I hope that he will go on to make a larger agreement with Egypt on the other outstanding issues. I wish him every success. I think that the attempt being made by Conservative back benchers in this House to destroy or undermine this Agreement is a dangerous thing.
I am in favour of making an agreement with Egypt, but I do not think we are helping things by selling them arms in this fashion, particularly when they are not entitled to them in view of their failure to try to make an effective and genuine peace with Israel. What we should give to the Egyptians is what they


are entitled to. What we should not give them is what they are not entitled to have. What the Egyptians are entitled to have is control over their own country, and the removal of the armed forces of another Power from that country. I do not think that they are entitled to have arms which they might use against a country with whom they themselves still declare they are at war. The Egyptians would respect us very much more if we had said on this issue of supplying arms to Middle Eastern States, "We are not prepared to reopen discussions on the supply of arms in this fashion until you have reached a reasonable settlement with Israel and with other States."
The issue with which the Minister of State did not deal at all in his speech was how these countries are to pay for these arms. What an example we are giving to the world at this time. The whole of the Middle East, on the Government's own confession, is in the state of tension and flux, and we are seeking to get an agreement between the countries concerned to pacify them. Just at this point the Minister of State gets up in the House of Commons and says, "We have to sell arms abroad to maintain our balance of payments and assist our economic position. This is a most important aspect of our economic policy and we are not worrying very much "—I do not say this is actually what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but it is the inference—" whether they are really able to pay for them."
In the matter of the economic position of the Middle East we have to remember that by our action in selling these aircraft to Egypt we are imposing on the State of Israel a further burden on top of all the other burdens which she has to carry, namely, the buying of similar aircraft. But not only has she to pay for arms, but we also have the ludicrous situation that pilots from Egypt and from Israel are being sent to this country to be trained. Each of them, I gather, costs the country concerned about £4,000 to train. That is a monstrous situation, and is due to a new departure in policy by the British Government, because they reopened an issue which we hoped had been closed.
In deciding her economic priorities, Israel has to divide her income into allocations for more rebuilding of her war

stricken land; how much should be given to help refugees; how much should be given to starting new factories; and how much should be allocated to erecting new schools. Now, on top of all that, the British Government tells Israel, in effect, that she has to buy arms to defend herself, and in the House of Commons the Minister of State tells us that the reason for it is, "We want to sell arms to help settle our balance of payments problem."

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has told us that Israel is sending pilots here to be trained to fly jet aircraft. The Government of which he was a supporter sent a supply of Vampire aircraft to Israel and pilots there are capable of flying them without being sent to this country to train.

Mr. Foot: If I am wrong I shall be very glad to be corrected. [Interruption.] I will not be corrected by the other hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, because he does not know what he is talking about. I believe it is true that pilots from some of these Arab States and I think from Egypt have been sent to this country to train and even if it is not so and they are not actually being sent to this country, some Israeli pilots have been sent. Therefore, the whole of my argument stands because they are being trained in other countries and this imposes an economic burden on them.
This is a monstrous thing not only for Israel, but for all the other countries. They should be deciding how much more they can devote to building up the economic life of their land. Instead, this extra burden has been imposed upon them with the added risks of contributing to the tension and further distress of the Middle East. I implore Her Majesty's Government to have the courage to carry out what they said they would when they were on this side of the House.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham): I want to get the argument of the hon. Member clear. Is he implying that we are forcing Israel to buy these planes?

Mr. Foot: I am saying exactly that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the State of Israel had to be fought for against all the other Arab States around it. If these Arab States are being supplied with jet aircraft then, of course, any Israel Government has to have jet


aeroplanes and arms as well. The State of Israel will sacrifice anything to defend itself against its enemies, and I say that it is a monstrous thing to require it to make this additional sacrifice.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: This has been a useful debate, perhaps all the more useful by reason of the fact that it has to some extent cut across party lines. It might have been even more valuable if some hon. Members on both sides of the House had imported rather less prejudice into their speeches. I know that it is difficult not to do so. I confess frankly at the beginning of these remarks that I have a very strong emotional link with Israel and with the Jewish people. It is something that I share with hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches feel just as strongly on this issue as I do myself.
I confess that I was disappointed with the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), and I hope that the Prime Minister has a more consistent regard for the interests of the Middle East and of the State of Israel than has the right hon. and gallant Member. It was the Prime Minister who, in his speech to Congress a year ago, referred to the Israelis as the people who were transforming deserts into gardens. It was the Prime Minister in a debate in this House in 1951 who referred to the fighting superiority of the Israelis over the Egyptians. I have sometimes wondered whether he had in mind the passage in the second Book of Kings which the Government might ponder tonight:
Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, upon which if a man lean. it will go into his hand, and pierce it
That is one of the dangers to which the Government are laying themselves open. I still stand by the views of President Eisenhower who, in the course of his election campaign, described Israel as "Democracy's outpost in the Middle East."
An hon. Gentleman opposite said he was not sure whether the position of Israel was relevant to the debate. I think he was wrong. If we are facing the likelihood of Israel getting arms herself but

being surrounded by five Arab States all of whom are getting the same kind of arms, it almost inevitably follows that the future of that country is to some extent in jeopardy. I believe two things about Israel. I believe, in the first instance, that the self-respect of the whole civilised world depends upon maintaining the independence and the integrity of that country. I believe, too, that the future and the prosperity of the Middle East largely depend upon the existence and the enterprise which Israel shows. That prosperity can be achieved in full measure only if we can guarantee the security of Israel and so conduce to the wellbeing not only of Israel itself but of the Middle East as a whole.
A very fair reference has been made to the record of my right hon. Friends in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite asked why it was all right for the Labour Government to do this, and why it is wrong for the Conservative Government at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has disposed to a large extent of that somewhat specious point of view, but it is interesting to consider the psychology which that question reveals. It denotes a certain inferiority complex on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It implies an assumption that if the Labour Government did something it is perfectly all right for the party opposite to do exactly the same. There is another point, too. At the time that this mistake was committed hon. Gentlemen opposite pointed out to us the error of judgment. If it was a mistake to do it then, it is doubly culpable to do it in the circumstances of today when hon. Gentlemen on the Government side are only too well aware of the mistake that was made at that time.
What happened in 1950, and up to that time? There had been various types of aircraft supplied to the Middle East. A Hunt class destroyer, the "Cottesmore," had been re-equipped and delivered to the Egyptian Government. Centurion tanks were on their way. There was a debate in the House of Commons which I thought one of the most stimulating and exciting that I had been privileged to


listen to in this House. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides protested then, as they have protested tonight, at what they regarded as the betrayal of the real interests of this country and at something which was not in the real interests of the Middle East as a whole.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite officially, on behalf of the then Opposition, put a Motion on the Order Paper. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), with some enterprise I thought, was successful in obtaining the Adjournment that very day to raise the issue which was causing such dismay throughout the House. At the end of the debate when hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Members of the Labour Party had protested against this action, my right hon. Friend from the Government Front Bench said that the Government would change their policy and would do what the House of Commons so clearly wished. That is exactly what we are asking the Government to do today.

Air Commodore Harvey: Surely the hon. Member will try to be fair and will admit that the orders were accepted and deliveries were about to take place, as opposed to the position today, and that the position has changed out of all knowledge. In spite of the Adjournment debate of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the then Government did continue to supply the Egyptians with spares for the jet aircraft to keep the aircraft flying.

Mr. Greenwood: It is true that the Government continued to supply spares for the aircraft which had already been delivered. On the first point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which is perfectly fair, a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have talked of fulfilling contracts which have been made. It is one of the most important things in the national life of this country that contractual obligations should be honoured, not only in the spirit but in the letter. If a country or a commercial undertaking accepts contractual obligations it is then incumbent upon them to see that those obligations are honourably discharged. There have been occasions, of course, when contractual obligations have not been treated in that way.
Let us apply that principle to the question that this House was facing in November, 1950, when there was a general upsurge of hon. Members in this House which brought about a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. I referred a moment ago to the Motion which the Opposition tabled officially on that occasion. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield should listen to the terms of that Motion, because they are relevant to the interjection that he made. It was a very simple Motion. and it reads:
That this House regrets that His Majesty's Government are unwilling to suspend the export of arms, including Centurion tanks, to Egypt, whether as a result of previous contracts or otherwise, while the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 is being challenged by the Egyptian Government.
If ever there was a clear indication of the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite regard contractual obligations, it is contained in that Motion.
It is a fairly nauseating spectacle—I am trying to keep heat out of this debate —to see hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches coming to this House in white sheets and pleading for the sanctity of contracts when the present Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and others put their names to that Motion in 1950. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield suggested that the situation had changed. Indeed when the Minister of State answered a Question put by my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and Devonport, and myself the other day, he made a special point in his reply of the change in the international situation since the 1950 decision to suspend the export of arms to Egypt and the Middle East.
What change has there been in the attitude of the Arab States to our own country since 1950? We debated this matter in the House in November, 1950, and again in July, 1951. The present Foreign Secretary and the present Prime Minister made out much more clearly than I could the charge which they felt lay against the Egyptian Government. They said that Egypt had challenged the Treaty of 1936, had not adhered to the United Nations Resolution in respect of Korea, and had illegally stopped the Suez Canal. The present Prime Minister, with his typical picturesqueness of phrase. said


that Egypt was insulting us more bitterly every day.
How have things changed since then? They still have not adhered to the United Nations resolution on Korea. They are still challenging the treaty of 1926. The Suez Canal is still blocked to British tankers, whatever the Egyptians allow the Italians to do. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite are not suggesting that the language of the Egyptians about this country has moderated to any extent compared with the language they were using in 1950?
Since then we have had a deterioration of the position. We have had the attack on our own troops in the Canal Zone. We have had riots in Cairo and in other towns. We have had a determination on the part of the Arab countries to resist the attempts of the United Nations to bring peace to a warring Middle East. We have had General Neguib referring to us, who perhaps have done more for Egypt than any other country in the world, as "the enemy in their midst." And then there is this sorry, this contemptible story of the passage of the
Miriella "through the Suez Canal the other day. There was an Italian tanker taking oil which had been stolen from Persia a country in respect of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were clamouring for firm action when they wanted to win an election—and to which they have not ceased to truckle ever since; an Italian tanker coming from one of our former enemies, with oil which had been stolen from us, going through a Suez Canal which was blocked to our own tankers and, indignity of indignities, escorted by an Egyptian warship through the canal, carrying oil for the enrichment of the family of Marshal Badoglio.
What a triumph of diplomacy right hon. Gentlemen have achieved when, so high is our prestige in the Middle East that Egypt treats us in this way, and what a wonderful change in the situation. The "Miriella" is now safely in dock in Venice and another tanker, the "Rocco" has left Genoa to sail to the Persian Gulf. All that is happening and the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the situation today is so much better than it was at the time we did these things. The other day the Minister of State paid a special tribute to General Neguib and said that when the General became Prime Minister we decided to

alter our policy and to ship arms to the Middle East. There again was a somewhat curious distortion of the facts.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is quite untrue that I said anything like that.

Mr. Greenwood: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was this:
After the advent to power of General Neguib last July, we decided in November, in response to Egyptian requests, to release a limited number of jet aircraft from among those still outstanding on the Egyptian order." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1468.]
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not decide to honour our contract after the return to power of General Neguib because he thought that the General had made the situation worse? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not going in for a programme and policy of appeasement? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not realise what a menace General Neguib was to this country and decided to buy him off with a handful of these trifling jet aircraft—which was virtually the way he referred to them a few minutes ago?
Is General Neguib the friend of this country? Is he really the sort of person to whom we ought to supply these arms? I think there is a lot to be said for him. He has cleaned up Egyptian politics and. heaven knows, Egyptian politics needed cleaning up. I think he has the vestiges of an economic and agricultural programme which will probably be in the interests of the Egyptian people. He has probably given the Jews in Egypt the security which they have not had in years. On the debit side, it is no good hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite fooling themselves into believing that General Neguib is anything but the implacable enemy of this country and that he cherishes friendly feelings towards the Israelis.
Then there is this curious series of six questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked and then himself answered. There was the really surprising point that it is in the financial interest of this country that we should be supplying these arms. It was in the financial interest of this country that the Labour Government should have supplied arms to any country that would have bought them, whether they were countries


behind the Iron Curtain, whether they were countries in the Middle East or not. Yet we never heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman complaining, in those days when the Labour Government decided to stop the shipment of arms to the Middle East, that thereby we were damaging the financial and economic prospects of this country. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopts this attitude, surely we have then to sell them to any country in the world which wants to buy them, whether it is made difficult for us by the Battle Act or not—I think it would be wrong to do it but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must follow out the logical consequences of the policy which he has adopted.
It will not be any consolation to the wives of those working class men and women in Leicester. to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) referred, if the jets that we are sending to the Middle East are used for helping to block the Suez Canal and are used in incidents against our Forces in the Canal Zone. And it will not be any alibi for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if any disaster of that kind happens, to say, "There was money in it and we jeopardised the interests of this country because there were economic and financial reasons for doing so." I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to pause tonight and think before they let it go out from this House that this is the serious and considered policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Then again there is this curious attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we did not do this. other people would do it. That has been the great excuse for crime and for wrongdoing throughout the centuries "If I do not do this-—If I do not steal—If I do not bully—If I do not attack somebody, somebody else will do it." Hon. Gentlemen opposite were perfectly right to say that this is a wrong moral attitude to adopt. I was particularly glad when the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), whose speech I thought was a resolute and sincere contribution to this debate, was able to teach a lesson of that kind to his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
Why is it, as one hon. Member asked, that we are not allowed to know how many of these aircraft are involved'? We know from the Press how many Meteors have been sent to Brazil under the barter agreement which has been reached between this country and Brazil. Yet for some reason we cannot know how many are going to the countries of the Middle East in spite of the fact that newspaper after newspaper has speculated—and I believe speculated rightly about the numbers involved.
Now I pass to the curious point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what is to be done with the arms we send. Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that these weapons are necessary for internal security; that, if there is trouble in the Mousski in Cairo, General Neguib will bring out his jet aircraft? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was getting a little more plausible when he talked about the real menace being the menace of Communist aggression, but does he really think that these obsolescent jet aircraft will be a very effective barrier against any advance of the Russian steam roller across the Middle East? I thought that the "Daily Telegraph" put that argument in its proper perspective when it said that the Russians would shoot down the Egyptian jets as though they were partridges. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the arms we are supplying to the Middle East, although they could be most effective against other Middle East countries or against our troops in the Canal Zone. would be quite ineffective in stopping any advance of Russian armies across the Middle East.
It really brings us back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in a speech at Halifax the other day when he said that we cannot resist the conclusion that the Arab countries, and particularly Egypt, want these aircraft in order that they can use them for a second round against Israel. General Neguib was reported in the New York Times "the other day as telling a delegation of majors at Gaza:
"As soon as we rid ourselves of the enemy in our midst "—


that is all of us in this House tonight—
we shall work for the liberation of Palestine and hand it back to its inhabitants.
It is true that a spokesman of the Egyptian Government later rather watered that down and said that they did not want a war with Israel, but it is a little unfortunate that the Egyptian Prime Minister should make a statement of that kind just at the time when hon. Members opposite are supplying the Egyptian Government with arms in order that they may make for the stability and security of the Middle East.
Colonel Shishekly, the dictator of Syria, or the Governor of Syria, told us the other day that Damascus was still "the watch tower of Saladin, the liberator of Palestine from usurping conquerors." The same gentleman also told us that "the Middle East is not large enough for both Arabs and Jews." "Al Misri," one of the most influential papers in Egypt, tells us that:
The Arabs are determined not only to smash Israel but to exterminate Imperialism.
They have started, with the able support of lion. Members opposite, to smash Imperialism. I would rather that hon. Members opposite paused a moment to consider whether it is in the interests of this country or of the Middle East that the Arab countries should be allowed to continue with their campaign for smashing Israel as well.
Supposing it is right, morally, to supply these arms to the Middle East. Can the Government really seriously contend that it is right to supply them to the Middle East at this particular juncture? It is a moment when the Arabs have acted with complete intransigeance in the United Nations. What an encouragement it is to the extremists in those countries if they can say, "It is no use talking to the British. Be rude, kick them around and they will give you jet aircraft." What an encouragement to them to behave even worse and perhaps get bombers or other more effective aircraft. Is that the way Her Majesty's Government are to conduct diplomacy for this country? That is carrying on the mistakes of generation after generation in the last 50 years when what we have refused to men of moderate ideas we have in the long run conceded to extremists at the point of the pistol or of the sword.
Is it really right for hon. Members opposite to be handing over these arms

at a time when we have been involved in negotiations about the Sudan and when we are on the point of commencing negotiations over Suez? Is it right to do this at a time when there is an intensification of the tremendous barrage of Soviet propaganda against Israel? Is it right to impose a burden like this upon Israel at a time when Israel's financial difficulties, heaven knows, are almost incapable of solution?
In conclusion, I say this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government will be pressed fairly hard from the benches behind them during the next few weeks. It is reported, I notice—and I heard his intervention the other day— that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) feels strongly on some of these Middle East problems. Knowing him, I feel sure that he will press the Government strongly from the very considerable position he holds on the back benches. But the Government will have pressure from sources not quite so responsible as the right hon. Gentleman. There was, for example, an article by Lord Killearn in the "Sunday Express," which I thought was not a very responsible or sensible article.
We on these benches are prepared to give the Government the support they are entitled to have provided they conduct diplomatic negotiations in the sensible way which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suggested this afternoon. It is no good behaving in the way in which the Government are behaving at the moment. We would say to them. "Do not yield to the clamour which will develop on the benches behind you but go ahead with clear aims, and without increasing the stresses and antagonisms of the Middle East. Do whatever you can to bring peace to those countries, to settle the Arab refugees and to make a real contribution to the progress and prosperity of the area."
If the Government are prepared to do that they will have the unqualified support of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. But if in the winding up speech tonight they can offer nothing more helpful and constructive than the Minister of State offered us earlier, we on these benches shall have no hesitation in dividing the House against the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.

6.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Perhaps I might do my best in the remaining quarter of an hour to answer some of the points which have been made and some of the questions which have been put in this debate. Before I do so. may I begin by endorsing the wish of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) that at the end of this debate there shall be no Division, the more so because, as my right hon. and learned Friend showed in his speech, Her Majesty's present Government have done so very much less in this respect than did the late Government.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) spoke with deep sincerity and moderation on a topic very close to his heart the position of Israel. I am happy, of course, to be able to remind him that Her Majesty's Government are pledged under Article 3 of the Tripartite Declaration of May, 1950, to uphold inviolate the frontiers of Israel.
I think that everyone in the House has felt that this debate had a rather familiar ring about it. Without in any way wishing to indulge in polemical reminiscences —we had some sound advice from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—I should like to cast a brief glance at history in order to set the matter in its proper perspective.
It is common knowledge in this House that jet aircraft were available to the States of the Middle East as early as 1949. Deliveries had started and were only stopped on the outbreak of the Korean war in the summer of 1950. Then, owing to the acceleration of the rearmament programme to meet the threatening international situation, it was impossible to supply aircraft to the Middle East or any other friendly nation other than our partners in the Commonwealth and in the North Atlantic Treaty. That state of affairs lasted two years and it was last year, as the Minister of State reminded the House, that the Prime Minister announced, on 30th July, that Her Majesty's Government intended to increase the export of armaments, including aeroplanes.
At the same time, owing to the increased production of our aircraft industry and to the development of newer types of jet fighters, aircraft became

available for sale abroad to friendly countries outside the Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. for the first time for two years. Some of the speeches made in this debate have suggested that we were pouring in vast quantities of the most dangerous of modern weapons to countries in the Middle East. I do ask the House to realise that this is not so. The total number of jet aircraft delivered in the past few months—I pass over those delivered by the previous Government, of course— is less than a score.
I cannot give any further details. l have been pressed on all sides of the House to give further details of our sales and the number of aircraft which have gone and which are going, but I cannot do so. I rely for that refusal upon the doctrine laid down by the former Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who said on 18th April, 1951:
It would be contrary to practice to disclose figures of cost or other details of contracts with foreign governments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April. 1951; Vol. 486. c. 1818.]
Therefore, I cannot say more than I have said about the numbers that have gone, but I think, none the less, that I have said enough to show that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is quite wrong in stating, as he did, that we were sending enough aircraft to Arab States for them to destroy the State of Israel within a matter of a few hours.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that the Opposition had in no way made out a case in this debate for stopping deliveries. I would go further than that and say that I consider that my right hon. and learned Friend made out an overwhelming case for continuing to send the existing supplies. I should like to make it quite plain that it is not just a question of sending jet aircraft to Egypt. It is a question of sending them to the Middle East, and I think that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who initiated the debate, will agree that the topic of the debate is the question of jets for the Middle East.

Mr. Dalton: indicated assent.

Mr. Nutting: Some States have had deliveries and have placed orders. Besides all that, there are two countries


with whom we have treaty obligations, namely, Iraq and Jordan, who are entitled to modern military equipment if they ask for it.
Several hon. Members, notably the hon. Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend's argument on economic grounds was a trivial argument. First, may I make it plain that this was not his main point. May I remind the House of what he said about the contract for aircraft that we have signed with Brazil. That contract, so I am advised, has enabled 2,000 men to remain in employment for six months when they would otherwise have been stood off for that period. I consider that to be a considerable economic advantage.
Quite apart from that, the markets in the Middle East are important to this country. I want the House to appreciate that they are important to this country and that if we do not sell in these countries it is not only a question of other countries who may not have the same concern for or the same understanding of these problems, but it is a question of our competitors selling in those markets, too.

Mr. S.: Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman really say that the Government are inviting the British House of Commons to sanction the supply of arms to two contending parties because we can sit in the background and make a profit out of it? If that is his argument, will he take it a step further and tell us how long the Government propose to keep this tension going so that we can continue to derive these economic benefits?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not my argument, and it was not the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Silverman: What is the argument?

Mr. Nutting: I will come to the question of the contending parties and tension in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will have patience.
I have been asked about payment for these aircraft. Payment will be on a normal cash basis, but it is open to purchasers to ask for credit terms and for the exporters to arrange for an export

credit guarantee through the facilities of the Board of Trade. The sterling balances do not enter into these transactions at all. They will not be used in payment at all. Therefore, I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) may feel reassured upon that point.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked how this transaction can possibly help to defend the peace. I should have thought that it had surely been accepted by this time in this House that armed strength is a help to peace and that weakness is a temptation to aggressors. That certainly is the view of Her Majesty's Government and it is the consideration which we have had to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) suggested that Israel would be happier if no one in the Middle East had any jets at all. That may be so. That may be my hon. Friend's opinion, but the fact remains— and nobody can escape from this—that other nations, including the Arab nations, have got jet aircraft as a result of previous deliveries arranged by the previous Government. Therefore, if we were to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and put a stop to these deliveries now, it would mean that we were stopping Israel from getting any deliveries at all.
The hon. Members for Nelson and Caine and for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made great play with the argument that Israel was forced to buy these aircraft because the Arab States were already receiving jet aircraft from this country. The historical facts do not at all bear out these allegations that the Israelis were forced by our sales to the Arab States to buy jets themselves. In point of historical fact, the Israel Government had already approached Her Majesty's Government with a request to buy jets before Her Majesty's Government took the decision last August to release jets to the Middle East.

Mr. Foot: They already had some.

Mr. Nutting: But that is not the fault of Her Majesty's present Government.

Mr. Foot: It affects the argument.

Mr. Nutting: To suggest, as the two hon. Members said, that by allowing


more jets to go to the Middle East we were imposing a burden upon Israel is a completely false point. The historical facts which I have quoted prove the falsity of that point.

Mr. Foot: Instead of the hon. Gentleman saying that I have made a false point, would he tell the House what the Israel representative in this country said to the Foreign Office on this matter?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to disclose confidential discussions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] How can I disclose to the House of Commons confidential discussions between my right hon. Friend and members of the Foreign Office and foreign representatives? This really is a very strange doctrine.
There has been a lot of talk during the course of the debate about the danger of raising the temperature and the danger that these sales will start hostilities between the Arabs and Israel again. It has been pointed out that no peace treaty as such exists between Israel and her neighbour. Let me also point out that the state of war, which, I admit, exists and continues to exist, between Israel and her former Arab enemy, is a purely technical state of war. What is more, the countries to whom we have authorised the sale of jets have given us the assurances that were required of them by the Tripartite Declaration.
May I make another point on this Tripartite Declaration. The hon. Member for Devonport accused the Government of selling jets to appease the Arab States. Let me remind him of paragraph 1 of the Tripartite Declaration, which reads:
The three Governments recognise that the Arab States and Israel all need to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purposes of assuring their internal security and their legitimate self-defence and to permit them to play their part in the defence of the area as a whole. All applications for arms or war material for these countries will be considered in the light of these principles.

That is precisely what we are doing; we are considering these applications from Arab States and Israel in the light of these principles—principles which were enunciated by the late Government. Therefore, I say to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and his hon. Friends that if they divide against the Government on this issue tonight they are, in fact, repudiating the terms of that Declaration.

This was not a lighthearted decision by Her Majesty's Government. It has been suggested that we have entered into these contracts and released these sales for one reason or another, none of which has borne any relation to the realities of the situation in the Middle East. I can assure the House that the Government have weighed the arguments very carefully, both for and against. My right hon. Friend said at Question time in the House the other day that there are arguments against, and we have heard arguments against from both sides of the House during the debate. But on the whole the Government have considered that the decision to release these sales is a correct and a right decision—

We do not think that these sales will increase tension in the Middle East. We think they will assist us economically and help to maintain both our exports and our armament production. We think they will be a contribution to the defence of the Middle Eastern countries and as such, a contribution to peace and stability in that vital strategic area.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. BuchanHepburn): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes. 267.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Balfour, A.
Boardman, H


Adams, Richard
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G


Allen Scholefield (Crewe)
Bartley, P.
Bowden, H. W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bence, C. R.
Bowen, E R.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Bowles, F. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Awbery, S. S.
Beswick, F.
Brockway, A. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)


Baird, J.
Blyton, W. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D




Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Janner, B.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinley, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann. Mrs. Jean
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F,


Fernyhough, E.
Messer, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Usborne, H. C.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Wade, D. W.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mulley, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Murray, J. D.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, George


Hale, Leslie
Oswald, T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.
Willey, F. T.


Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, David (Neath)


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillerv)


Hargreaves, A.
Paton, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Holman, P.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.



Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Richards, R.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Alport, C. J. M.
Banks, Col. C.
Birch, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Amory, Heathceat (Tiverton)
Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boothby, R. J. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bossom, A. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Assheton, Fit. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bennett, F M. (Reading, N.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Braine, B. R.


Baldock, Ll.-Cmdr. J. M
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)







Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Hollis, M C.
Peto, Brig C. H. M


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P. G. T
Horobin, I. M
Pitman, I J


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bullock, Capt. M
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Profumo, J. D.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Rayner, Brig R


Carr, Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Redmayne, M


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Channon, H.
Jennings, R.
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Jones, A (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S)


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robson-Brown, W


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kaberry, D.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kerr, H. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lancaster, Col C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur


Crouch, R. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sandys, Rt. Hon D


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof Sir Douglas


Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col W (Rochdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Scott, R Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Llewellyn, D. T.
Simon, J E S (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J G. (Norwood)


Doughty, C. J. A
Longden, Gilbert
Snadden, W McN


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Low, A. R. W.
Soames, Cant C


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Sir Joce[...]yn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Drewe, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Speir, R. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt.Hon. O
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Storey, S.


Erroll, F. J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fell, A.
McKibbin, A J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)


Finlay, Graeme
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Fort, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Foster, John
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Teeling, W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Gammans, L. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Tilney, John


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Harpies, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Turton, R. H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maudling, R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Vane, W. M. F.


Gower, H. B.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Watkinson, H A.


Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wellwood, W.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nutting, Anthony
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)


Hay, John
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wills, G.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P S
Wood, Hon. R.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
York, C.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)



Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Heath and Mr. Vosper.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 12th February.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 7.—(DUTY OF PRODUCERS TO COMPLY WITH BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.)

7.12 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "a substantial," and to insert "any."
This Clause is the one in which power is given to fix maximum prices for the sale of iron and steel products. Subsection (5) is the one in which the Government set out to try to prevent evasions of the maximum price orders. They do it by saying that if any iron and steel producer passes a substantial part of his production to a selling agent then the production so passed will be treated in exactly the same manner, so far as maximum price orders go, as if it had not been passed to a selling agent. In other words, that part will be subject to the maximum price order.
But the Committee will observe that to come within the mischief of this subsection a substantial part of an iron and steel producer's production must have been passed to the selling agent. The short point which we wish to bring home to the Government, and which we hope will be accepted, is that it would be much better if the two words, "a substantial "were omitted. That would make the Clause read that if any part of a producer's production were passed to a selling agency or agent for the purpose of resale then the maximum price order would apply to that part, however small it was, in exactly the same way as if it had been sold direct by the iron and steel producer.
We are trying to strengthen the very good intention of the Government. We hope that this Amendment will be accepted to make firm their intention and to put it to much better effect than it would otherwise be put if the words are left in the Bill. We want to stop up a loophole whereby perhaps a rather more than usually enterprising, though rather

less than usually scrupulous representative of private enterprise could try to make a profit for himself at the expense of his fellow producers and at the expense of the consumers by undermining the price structure as far as he dares without actually bringing himself into contact with the provisions of the law on the subject.
The word "substantial" is one which is constantly before the courts. It is capable of definition. The trouble is that it is capable of just as many definitions in a court of law as there are contexts in which it may be used. For every context in which this word is used there could he a different definition. It is throwing wide open the gate to evasion if a word which is so unsatisfactory is imported into the Statute Book. It is bound to lead to a great deal of dispute and, it may be. to expensive litigation. It would be much better to leave out this word.
I ask the Government whether they can mention one instance in which any detriment would be suffered by any lawabiding person if these words were deleted. I submit that there could be none. On the contrary, it would help all who wish to play fair. It is true that a substantial portion of a man's production has to be handed over in this manner to a selling agent before the Clause as it is now worded can come into operation. But suppose that many people practise this form of activity to an extent which is held subsequently, after long litigation, to be just less than a substantial amount of the production of each one of them. The cumulative effect of all that might be considerable.
On more than one occasion the Minister has said that his approach to these people, who will be looking after the steel industry when it is taken over by private enterprise—if ever it is taken over, or to the extent to which it is taken over—will not be one of accusing them of being criminal before they have been shown to be criminal. That is an attitude which we entirely understand and thoroughly approve. It is one which should be appreciated.
Nobody wishes to queer the pitch of the country by branding as criminal people who may not be criminal, and the vast majority are not. Although we appreciate that to the full, we feel that if these words were deleted the Minister


would be able to say to these people, "We do not want to do anything which would even appear to be against you now; we want to help you—all those of you who wish to play the game and act by the law as it is."
This Amendment merely seeks to make the provisions of this particular subsection more watertight, fairer to those who want to do right, and also make it clearer, so that there will not be any dispute as to what constitutes a substantial part of a man's production. It will be clearer so that it will, possibly, even deter those who are not scrupulous and who wish to make some kind of evasion in this way. If this Amendment were accepted, possibly such people might be deterred, and the time, trouble and energy of the authorities who might have to pursue them will be saved. It is therefore with some confidence as to what the Minister will do that I submit it for the consideration of the Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I think that the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has slightly misunderstood the point of this subsection. As he has told the Committee, his Amendment would allow the Board to extend their control over maximum prices as far as merchants and stockists, whereas the subsection, as now drafted, seeks to bring within the Board's control only any producer's selling agent who, in practice, sells the whole or any substantial part of that producer's output of any products. A number of producer companies have from time to time created and employed selling agents, and it was in recognition of this existing and legitimate arrangement that this subsection was included in the Bill, rather than with the purpose, which I think the hon. and learned Gentleman thought we had in mind, of trying to prevent evasion of the maximum prices through merchants or stockists.
The Bill is not designed to cope with shortage conditions when there may be a possibility of a black market or profiteering. The Board's price powers bite on the producers only. In times of no shortage, as, I think, the Committee will agree, if a merchant charges excessive prices, the consumer can go to another

merchant or direct to a producer and buy at or below the Board's maximum prices. The Bill gives the Board powers of determining maximum prices in normal conditions, and my right hon. Friend, in the debate on the White Paper on 23rd October, 1952, when speaking of the second major responsibility of the Board, which will be in regard to prices, said this:
Supervision may be necessary for two reasons. It may be necessary to prevent makers of iron and steel from charging excessive prices. On the other hand, it may be necessary to prevent speculators outside the industry in time of shortage buying steel and re-selling it on the black market. Those are quite separate and distinct problems. The task of curbing black market operations outside the industry has nothing to do with the iron and steel industry itself. It calls for Government action backed by the sanctions of the criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1287.]
That view of my right hon. Friend was also put to the House on Second Reading.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Not just an injunction?

Mr. Low: Not just an injunction, because, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will have realised from the quotation from my right hon. Friend's speech which I have just given, the sort of thing he was thinking of there was a breach of maximum prices fixed by the Government and affecting not only the iron and steel industry, but everybody who might sell or buy.
This question of how wide the Board's price powers should extend is a question which has a comparison in the Bill presented to the House by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). The right hon. Gentleman may remember that, during the Committee stage of his Bill, on 22nd February, 1949, he used the following argument in proposing that he should not be given power in that Bill to fix the prices charged by producers outside the Iron and Steel Corporation's net. The point was whether, by means of the licensing procedure, the Minister should be given power to fix their prices, as well as to have some influence on the prices of the Corporation, and he used these words, which, I think, are very relevant:
The purpose which I had in mind was. to ensure that there was no profiteering by such outside firms which, in times of shortage, might want to sell their products at very


high black market prices, or at prices substantially higher than those offered by the Corporation. Therefore, there seemed to me to be a good reason for power to effect maximum price control in this way.
The point which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind is very much the same sort of point as his hon. and learned Friend put to the Committee a little while ago. Then, he went on:
However, I have given this matter much thought, and it has struck me that it will probably be more appropriate that that maximum price control to prevent—I will not say black marketeering,' but profiteering of this description—should be effected by some general order affecting prices of materials— steel and, maybe, other materials—rather than by provision in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 22nd February, 1949, c. 1145–46.]
We took exactly the same view on the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, and we thought that this was not the place to tackle the question of price control affecting merchants or stockists. Clause 7 refers to iron and steel producers, and we have extended it by subsection (7) to their particular specified selling agents, through whom they sell the whole or a substantial part of their products. and we do not think it right. and we recommend this view to the Committee, to extend it any further to merchants or stockists. For those reasons. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us of a single way in which anyone who wished to abide by the law would suffer a detriment if these words were removed?

Mr. Low: It is a question whether we think it right to extend the Board's maximum powers outside the circle of the industry. That was the question, and I have recommended the Committee to agree with us that it is not right.

Mr. I. Mikardo: May I put briefly a point which is different from any put by my hon. and learned Friend? I can well understand the point which he makes about seeking, in this way and in this Clause, to take powers for the Board over merchants and stockists, but I put it to him that there are some conditions in which we may have an authorised selling agent, an appointed agent, under a closely-drawn

agreement, who, nevertheless, sells a fraction of the producer's output which would be considered to be substantial.
I know of two conditions under which that might happen. The first is where we have a producer of a considerable number of products who gives the selling rights of one of these products—his whole output of that one product, which is only one of many products—to a particular agent. He may choose to sell all the rest himself or he may choose to have them sold by a different selling agent or a number of different selling agents. In that case we have the whole of this firm's output of one product—perhaps a key product—in the hands of a selling agent but with the price outside the control of the Board because of the use of this word "substantial."
7.30 p.m.
The second possibility—and I have known this to happen is that a producing company hands to a selling agent the right to sell to a given class of consumer, to a given consuming industry or to a given internal market. Again, that consuming industry or consuming market may be only a fraction, a comparatively small fraction, of the total output of the company, but this agreement to sell this comparatively small fraction may nevertheless be a proper selling agreement formally entered into. I do not attempt to deceive the Committee by contending that either contingency is widespread, but of course there is no reason why any steel-producing company should not choose to do its selling in either or both of those ways, and indeed, it would be quite proper for any company to do so, and in some cases which I know it would be highly advantageous for them to do so. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it would be a pity if, because of a form of words, that point were omitted.

Mr. Robson Brown: The argument is quite valid, but it is covered in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's argument concerns a company making a particular product which is not a substantial part of its major product. But the Bill refers to any product of any company. It is clear and precise.

Mr. Mikardo: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not understood the purport of the Amendment. I will take


a hypothetical figure. Suppose a company makes 10 products—and I am oversimplifying this, of course—all in equal quantities, and suppose that in the case of product number one it appoints Messrs. Smith, Jones, Brown and Robinson, Ltd., as its sole selling agency with a proper selling agency agreement. That is the sort of selling agency which the Minister seeks to cover in the Bill, but Messrs. Smith, Jones, Brown and Robinson are selling only 10 per cent. of the producer's output of iron and steel products to which a determination of the Board shall apply and—

Mr. Low: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the word "any" from the quotation, and that is rather important. Line 30 says:
…a substantial part of the producer's output of any iron and steel products to which a determination of the Board under this section relates.

Mr. Mikardo: If that was the point of the hon. Member for Ether (Mr. Robson Brown), I apologise to him for having misunderstood him. I am not well up in legal phraseology and I may be wrong here, but I had read line 30 quite closely and had not thought it would cover the contingencles which I have described. For example, I thought that if all 10 products of this hypothetical producer were all subject to a determination, then the fact that this one which was subject to the selling agreement was only 10 per cent. of them all would make it fall outside the Clause. I may be wrong, and is so I shall be glad to be corrected. Would the Parliamentary Secretary take advice as to whether his interpretation and that of the hon. Member for Esher is right and mine is wrong?
In any event, I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the whole of this subsection is only permissive and not mandatory. Ministers always say about statutory bodies that they are not morons and therefore, as responsible bodies, will not do silly things. If the Amendment were accepted, we could rely upon the Board not to use its permissive powers to go digging down into some fiddling little business of some small stockist. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would take steps to confirm his view, if only for my edification, so as to see whether his interpretation of the position is correct and mine is wrong.

Mr. Low: I will certainly give that assurance, but from reading the Clause and from such advice as I have been given I am fairly certain that the interpretation of line 30 is as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) indicated and as I indicated in my intervention.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary and we shall be obliged if he will look into this a little further and consult his legal advisers so that we may be quite clear about what we are doing. At the moment we are not certain. We may be right, we may be wrong, but we think there is some point in our arguments, and in particular we should like some advice on some future occasion upon the meaning of the word "substantial." We do not know what it means. Supposing a man sells 10 per cent. of his output through an agent. Can the maximum price be exceeded for that 10 per cent.? Supposing it is 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.? Is that a substantial part of the output? It may be that a manufacturer will have an arrangement for selling x per cent. of his product through an agent. What sort of percentage is involved here?
This is a matter for legal definition. I understand that the courts always consider, on the merits of the case, what is meant by "substantial," but I do not know what guidance they would have in a matter of this sort. I will not press the Parliamentary Secretary for an answer now, but we think this is of some importance, and if he will undertake to look into it and to tell us on a future occasion what is the legal advice and what is the situation, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will be willing to withdraw the Amendment. If we are not satisfied, we can take it up later.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: Before my hon. and learned Friend withdraws the Amendment, I should like to draw attention to the fact that no Law Officer is present. I accept the construction given by the Parliamentary Secretary, who is well versed in these things, but I think it is discourteous to the Committee continually to have to refer things back. I hope that one of


the Treasury Ministers will be able to find a Law Officer so that we can attend to these matters more expeditiously.

Mr. Low: I am sure the Committee do not want to make too much of this. This is a difference of opinion between laymen, and such a difference of opinion can take place whether a Law Officer is present or not, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have given the assurance and I will certainly look at the matter again, but, of course, in drafting the Bill and introducing it, my right hon. Friend and I took full legal advice and we formed our own opinion about what the words meant.
If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Clause he will see that this is not a matter which is likely to come before the courts—and I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would agree to this—because the subsection begins:
Where it appears to the Board that
Therefore, what is likely to happen on this occasion is not an appeal to the courts. I gather from the mirth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) that he is indicating that it is all the more necessary that we should be clear what "substantial" means. I am bound to say that I am fairly clear what "substantial" is, just as I am fairly clear what an elephant is when I meet one, but I find it more difficult to define the word. I will take advice and if hon. Members opposite want to press this matter further I am sure that there will be an opportunity for it.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: What we propose to do is to leave it to the Board whether they do or do not exercise these powers when a part of the production is sold in this way. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that at present it is for the Board and entirely the Board to decide what is "substantial." The result comes to this—that anyhow it rests with the Board. "Substantial" is much less easy to recognise than an elephant. Why on earth should it not be left to the Board instead of to the meaning of this rather vague and unfortunate word? I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Solicitor-General arrives he should consult him on the question of how he will

obtain an interim injunction, the favourite remedy for peccant steel owners in the mind of the Solicitor-General, if that decision depends upon the Board's opinion of what "substantial" means? It might place a judge in a considerable difficulty.

Mr. Low: Surely the hon. and learned Member is misleading the Committee on that point. What the court would have to know is whether the Board had by notice in writing to the selling agent in formed him that this section of the Act. as it will then be, applied to sales by him. That is a clear matter which the court could find out quite easily.

Mr. Mitchison: That is not so. The question is whether the Board are entitled to send the notice at all. A gentleman who has been brought up for the purpose of an interim injunction—instead of being put in "quod" or fined—might get away with it because it was said that 5 per cent. was "substantial."

Mr. Jack Jones: May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not altogether a matter of one-way traffic? Whilst the Parliamentary Secretary may be quite certain that he knows what an elephant is, we want to know whether, under this Bill, the elephant knows what a Parliamentary Secretary is.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, to leave out "forgings and."
The object of this Amendment is to make the Board's power to determine the maximum price of a forging extend to forgings which have been machined incidentally to the forging process. This applies, of course, only when the Board have the power to determine the maximum prices of forgings. I say that because I have in mind the new Clause relating to the application of price provisions to forgings, which defines the conditions under which the power may be exercised. The Committee are probably aware that most of the steel industry's forgings are normally sold after rough machining. It is generally accepted that this practice of the forgemasters of doing some machining is an economical practice and we are anxious to recognise that. That is what the Amendment does
Following the Amendment to the Third Schedule which we discussed earlier, engineering forging is now outside the Bill altogether and there is no fear that the expression "incidental process or operation" might cover purely engineering processes. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mt. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end, to add:
(8) Where a determination is in force under the preceding provisions of this section with respect to any products, and it appears to the Board that, in the case of any sales of those products in the United Kingdom by a particular iron and steel producer (or the selling agent of that producer) to a particular purchaser, the maximum price ought, owing to unusual requirements by the purchaser or unusual methods of manufacture or other special circumstances, to be in excess of the maximum price under the said determination, the Board may, by notice in writing to that producer and that purchaser, determine a maximum price for those sales in excess of the maximum price aforesaid, and thereupon the duty of the producer under this section shall, as respects those sales, be a duty not to charge prices greater than the maximum price determined under this subsection:
Provided that the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised in relation to any determination made or varied in pursuance of an order made by the Minister under the next following section, unless that order or any order varying that order authorises the power to be exercised in relation to that determination and any requirements imposed by the order, which may include the obtaining of the Minister's consent, are complied with.
A determination under this subsection may be varied or replaced by a subsequent determination thereunder, or may be revoked by the Board by notice in writing to the said producer and purchaser, and the preceding provisions of this section, except subsections (1), (3) and (4) thereof, shall apply to a determination under this subsection.
This Amendment which seeks to add a new subsection (8) is designed to enable the Board to vary their price determinations for particular out-of-course transactions, in the same way as the Minister of Supply can under the current Iron and Steel Prices Order and could do under all previous Orders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will remember those orders.
We had understood that Clause 7 (2) gave the necessary flexibility, but the best legal opinion now is that that subsection

and subsection (4) cannot be used to allow special variations for particular transactions. Flexibility is, of course, necessary in this complex industry which provides a variety of products for customers requiring a wide variety of specifications; otherwise a customer who has a particularly tight specification or some special requirement may suffer and may not obtain what he wants at all because his needs could only be met by the producer making a loss on the transaction, which naturally he would be unwilling to do, or by the producer selling above the maximum price, which would be illegal and which he would not do.
If an individual consumer, because he has a special requirement costing somewhat more to produce, is prepared to pay a reasonable price in excess of the maximum, it is only right that he should not be debarred from doing so because of an over-rigid rule. Individual exceptions will not destroy the main safeguard.
There are two points, of importance in this rather long Amendment. The first paragraph of the Amendment makes it clear that in cases of a sale or series of sales between a particular producer and a particular purchaser, where the requirements or "the methods of manufacture" are unusual or there are other special circumstances, the Board will be able to vary the price determination for these sales. Such variations will be entirely at the discretion of the Board. The Board's determination to vary their general determination will be conveyed by notice in writing to both producer and purchaser. There will be a minimum of formality in arranging these special transactions. When the Board have made a special determination, the producer has a duty not to charge more than the maximum price determined.
The proviso in the second paragraph makes it clear that the Board will not have a general power to vary, in special cases, determinations made following a Minister's order if he has used his reserve powers under Clause 8. It would clearly be wrong to provide such a general power which in theory could be used to frustrate the Minister's intentions, even though in practice the Board would not be likely to adopt such a course. Since, however, it will be just as necessary to provide for flexibility where the Minister directs the Board to determine a price,


the proviso makes it clear that the Minister's order—which will be debatable in Parliament—may lay down the circumstances in which the Board will be able to vary a determination made following the Minister's order.

Mr. Jack Jones: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for giving this detailed and technical exposition of what this new subsection means. We would boil it down to a very few words. It safeguards the interests of the person or persons called upon to supply a very useful one-off article—if I can put it in technical terms—the person providing something in special material or something of rather unorthodox manufacture which requires flexibility. This Amendment gives flexibility. We are grateful to know that the main proceedings are safeguarded, and we have no objection to this Amendment.

Mr. Peter Roberts: There are two short questions I should like to ask. First of all, is it quite clear that the producer as well as the purchaser can approach the Board? I am not quite certain how this procedure is going to work. The Amendment says, "and it appears to the Board." Can we assume, therefore, that the producer as well as the purchaser can make the representations to the Board in the first place?
The second point is this. Is my hon. Friend not frightened that there may be some delay while the Board considers these various points? It may be that it may have a number of special cases. Quite a number of contracts may have to be put to the Board. There is no question of a time limit in the Clause, and there is a certain amount of worry that the Board may sit considering such matters for two or three weeks or even longer when a special case has to he put through quickly. I would ask, therefore, whether my hon. Friend is satisfied that the producer and purchaser can go to the Board, and second, whether he thinks there ought to be some special Amendment dealing with delay.

Mr. Mikardo: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I put one of my own? He told us that he turned his back on the advice given to him by the Solicitor-General on a point covered by subsection (2) and went and got the best legal advice which must be outside

the ranks of the Government—which induced him to change his mind. May we ask him to tell the Committee where he got that advice, and if, in fact, he meant what he said, and has been consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), is that not the dangerous beginning of a coalition?

Mr. Low: I think the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) knows the answer to his question. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked me first whether the producer and the purchaser could go to the Board to make representations to get special advice. The answer is, of course, that the producer is the only person covered by the Board's powers. I think that really answers the question. If the purchaser wants to get something very badly and the producer wants to sell it to him there is no need for them both to go to the Board. It is quite obvious that the producer would go automatically to the Board.
My hon. Friend's second question expressed his fear that there may be some delay in this matter. I think he will remember my telling the Committee that some kind of provision has been embodied in iron and steel price control orders for many years, and our experience is that we get about 30 applications a year for this sort of thing, and I do not think that there have been any complaints—certainly, I have no knowledge of any complaints—of any undue or unreasonable delay in the matter, and I am sure that the Board will be just as alive as the Government are at present to the importance of avoiding delay in all these sorts of things.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, in page 8, line 21, at the end, to add:
() For the purposes of this section, the sale of any iron and steel products for export to a place outside the United Kingdom shall not be treated as a sale in the United Kingdom, but save as aforesaid the sale of any iron and steel products which, at the time when the property therein passes to the buyer, are situated in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to be a sale in the United Kingdom.
I hope I shall carry the Committee with me when I say that without any doubt this should be regarded as a substantial


Amendment. It is not "one off." The Amendment in fact covers two points. The first point is a quite simple one. It was never intended that the powers of the Board should extend so far as to apply to sales of iron and steel products for export; it was never intended that the Board should be able to fix maximum prices of those products for export; and on further consideration it was thought right to express that perfectly clearly in the Bill, so that in any proceedings brought for an injunction it would be a clear defence for the person against whom, or company against whom, such proceedings were brought, to establish that the sales in respect of which those proceedings were launched were in fact sales for export.
The second part of the Amendment is designed to stop a possible loophole, and to make it clear that the Board's maximum prices cannot be evaded just by making contracts for sale outside the United Kingdom of products within the United Kingdom. Without those words at the end of this Amendment it might have been thought possible for someone to have evaded the operation of the Board's maximum prices, when they come to be laid down, by making the contract of sale of products within the United Kingdom outside the United Kingdom. That part of this Amendment makes it clear that that cannot be done. With those short observations in support of this substantial Amendment, I beg to commend it to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(POWERS OF MINISTER AS TO PRICES.)

Mr. Low: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, after "under," to insert "subsection (1) of."
I think it would be convement for the Committee if my remarks could be taken as referring to the next two Amendments as well as to this one. They are all consequent upon the Amendment to Clause 7 to introduce a new subsection (8), with which I was dealing a short time ago.
It is not intended that the Minister should come in on these special cases except where his consent is required to

variation of a determination made following his order. This Amendment accordingly provides that the Minister's power to make an order directing the Board to make a prices determination for certain products, or to vary it, shall apply only to the Board's general determinations made under subsection (1) of Clause 7 and not to special determinations under the new subsection (8) of Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "thereunder" and insert "under that subsection,".

In line 31, after "under," insert "subsection (1) of."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. P. Roberts: I wish only to say. before we leave the question of the fixing of prices, that, of course, there are further Amendments and new Clauses on the exclusion of certain products and processes from this procedure, and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with other exclusions of other steel prices at a later stage, rather than deal with them now on this Clause. If I may reserve the position to raise the question at a later stage, I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(IMPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS.)

8.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the next Amendment—in page 9, line 5, to leave out the second "and" and to insert "or "—I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same tmie the Amendments, which also seek to leave out "and" and to insert "or ", in line 10, line 14 and line 22.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think that would be to the general convenience of the Committee, because all the Amendments cover the same point.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I beg to move, in page 9, line 5, to leave out the second "and" and to insert "or."
The textual significance of this and similar Amendments may be clouded by the fact that they are monosyllabic, but they still make quite a considerable difference to the content of the Clause as drafted. The provision of plant and equipment in the steel industry is only half the story. The other half of the story concerns the provision of the raw materials for that plant and equipment, and it is that with which we are exercised in our attitude to the Clause as at present drafted.
The iron and steel industry has always been abnormally sensitive to the fluctuations of the supply of its raw materials. Its policy has always been to attempt to secure long-term arrangements for the supply of its raw materials at stable and guaranteed prices. In this context it is perhaps interesting to note in parenthesis that, whereas the Conservative Party created such an un-understandable hullabaloo about bulk purchase when it was operated by the Labour Government, it has been a consistent part of the policy of the iron and steel industry ever since the industry has had any semblance of organisation.

Mr. Jack Jones: It is a right policy, too.

Mr. Fienburgh: As my hon. Friend says, it is the right policy, and the inevitable policy, as the iron and steel industry learned during the '20s when the whole industry was grossly over-capitalised in individual attempts by individual firms to secure a firm base for their raw material supplies by buying up lime quarries, ore mines, and so on. It is because of the important aspect of raw materials to this industry that we attach importance to this Amendment.
The Clause as drafted embodies two conditions governing intervention by the Board. The Board can intervene directly by setting up an agency, or by itself operating the importation and distribution of raw materials, first, if it is satisfied that this service would be better organised as a common service for the whole industry, and secondly if it is satisfied that reasonable arrangements do not already exist in

the industry for the importation and distribution of raw materials. We have no quarrel with the imposition of these two major conditions. Obviously it is right and proper that the Board should put up a case for the creation of a common service for importation and distribution. It would be wrong to embark on an expensive scheme if the existing services were satisfactory.
Within each of these conditional subsections there is a further sub-condition, because on each of these points the Board must prove its case, in respect of both importation and distribution. It must prove that the importation of raw materials is unsatisfactory and that it would be better organised as a common service, and that both the importation and the distribution are not operating to the general good of the industry. As we have said time and time again, in this Bill many restrictions are imposed on the powers of the Board—many of them, we are convinced, are deliberate.
Much of this Bill is a matter of making honourable professions and then refusing to provide the powers whereunder these professions could be put into effect. We are reasonably confident, however, that this inhibition on the powers of the Board is involuntarily an oversight of drafting; in effect it makes it extremely difficult for the Board actively to intervene at all in this very important field of importation and distribution, because four conditions must be satisfied—or various permutations of various conditions must be satisfied—before the Board can intervene under the Clause as at present drafted.
There are many circumstances in which we can imagine two or three out of the four conditions being entirely unsatisfied, yet because the Board cannot have a full house on the whole stack of cards it is prevented from taking action. For example, the importation of raw materials may be quite good but the distribution of what is imported may be bad. In those circumstances the Board has no power to act or to intervene actively. The distribution may be good, but on the other hand the importation may be insufficient, or badly organised, or not properly related to opening up new sources of supply. In this case the Board cannot act, even though something is seriously wrong. The case may be made that a common service


for importation would be desirable, but unless the Board can at the same time make the case that it is desirable to have a common service for distribution as well, then again under the Clause as drafted the Board has no power to act.
Obviously the converse of that applies. The case may be well made for setting up a common service for distribution, but unless a case can also be made on importation the Board has no power to act. When it does act, provided it manages to satisfy all these permeations of conditions and sub-conditions it can only set up machinery which covers both importation and distribution, whereas it may well be the case that the importation machinery, such as it is, and the arrangements, such as they are, are adequate, and it is just the distribution that has gone wrong. It may well be that all is wrong, in which case, as far as this Clause is concerned, action can be taken. It may well be that only part is wrong, in which case the Board cannot act. We therefore seek to amend the Clause by substituting our "ors" for the various "ands" which are speckled throughout its lines so that the Board can act if either importation or distribution is not adequately operated.
One of the first points we should like to draw attention to is that the Clause as drafted makes it impossible for the Board to set up any kind of agency if there is any breakdown in the distribution of home-produced raw materials for the industry—which, as everybody knows is a quite substantial part, and in future will be an even more substantial part, of the raw materials supplies of the industry. There can be a complete breakdown in the distribution of home-produced raw materials, but because of the very fact that it is home-produced and has not been imported the Board cannot set up an agency to reorganise the distribution in the national interest, or even in the pecuniary interest of members of the industry itself.
Let us look at some of the raw materials in question. Of our coke supplies, all of which come from home sources, 70 per cent. comes from ovens operated by the industry itself, 25 per cent. from ovens operated by the National Board and 5 per cent. from independent coke

producers. In 1951, as we remember all too well, there were various minor shortages and minor disturbances in the supply of coke to steel making plants, and dissatisfaction was expressed at the distributive arrangements. Since then new ovens have come into operation and the situation has been considerably eased. But new difficulties can arise.
For example, firms which are normally reasonably self-sufficient may, because of the nature of their product and the need there is for that product in the national interest, be able to put up a very good case for obtaining more coke from National Coal Board ovens. Plants normally dependent on the National Coal Board may, on occasion, be able to put up a case for obtaining more coke from ovens under public ownership. It is very easy to make these adjustments; it is a question of the physical transposition of the coke, moving it from A to B, to where it is most useful.

Mr. Robson Brown: What has this to do with it?

Mr. Fienburgh: I am trying to point out—and I am sure Mr. Thomas, who is very adept at chairmanship of this Committee, would have called me to order if my remarks had been out of order— that the Clause as at present drafted makes it impossible for the Board to intervene actively if there is a breakdown in the distribution of home based and home produced raw materials. I am trying to indicate that there would be no point in making the suggestion if there was no possibility of breakdown, and to indicate some of the lines on which it may be necessary for some reorganisation to take place, and therefore make necessary some intervention on the part of the Board, which until Mr. Thomas raises objection, I shall continue to do.
The same case comes in in relationship to home ore, which is an increasing element in the production of steel, and an inevitable and desirable increase in the use of home ore will take place during the years to come. Much of this is tied production coming from tied plant, but as we go on it may be necessary to divert some of the home ore to plants normally more dependent on imported ore.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I should like to put the point, Mr. Thomas, that I shall be unable to follow the hon. Gentleman in replying, because neither the Amendment nor the Clause deals with anything but imported raw materials from overseas.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the Minister, but the Clause also deals with distribution, as I read it, and so far as I am concerned the hon. Member is quite in order.

Mr. Sandys: It deals with the distribution of imported raw materials but not with the distribution of raw materials obtained from sources at home.

Mr. Fienburgh: The heading is "Importation and distribution of raw materials." If our Amendment were accepted we could, of course, cover the distribution of home-based raw materials. If I am out of order, I will not pursue that point any longer, and I will concentrate on the difficulties which may arise concerning the importation and distribution of home-based ore and scrap. There again, much the same position may arise. The distribution arrangements may be adequate but the importation arrangements may be bad and vice versa. I think that it is important in this context—

Mr. Robson Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman mean imported ore and scrap or home ore and scrap, because he only said home ore and scrap?

Mr. Fienburgh: I was leaving the point of home-based ore materials, and I am now turning to the importation and distribution of ore and scrap. The importation of ore and scrap at this moment—and this is an important political point and not only a technical point is controlled by the Iron and Steel Corporation Ore Limited, the shares of which are held on trust by the Iron and Steel Corporation for the British Iron and Steel Federation, which up to now has controlled importation and distribution policy.
There have been complaints about the importation policy and complaints about the policy of securing and developing overseas resources. Now many of these complaints are no longer valid because, mainly under pressure and threat from the Nationalised Iron and Steel Corporation, the position has been very greatly

rectified, but still the major point of our Amendment stands. It is quite possible that things can go wrong in connection with importation.
It may be said that there is no need for the Board to intervene and that these things can be well-adjusted within the industry itself; that the importation and distribution agency is the creature of the Federation, which is the master hand in the industry, and if there is any argument or dispute or breakdown the well-oiled machinery of the Federation itself can be guaranteed to make the necessary adjustments. But I have pointed out that the import and distribution agency is the creature of the Federation and tied to the Federation.
The Federation is actively, and always has been, opposed to the conception of iron and steel being produced under public ownership. We are going to sell part of this industry. It is doubtful if we will sell much and we certainly shall not sell all. There will be a residuary part of the industry in public hands, but the whole distribution of raw materials resources for the whole of the industry can rest in the hands of a political Federation inimical to the whole conception of public ownership.
Traditionally, the control of raw materials to the industry has been the means of bringing pressure on the constituent parts of the industry. Part of the defeat of Jarrow and some of the arguments over Ebbw Vale were solved in the end because of pressure on the individual firms concerned by those who controlled the raw materials.
8.15 p.m.
We fear that the Federation, through its influence, may show undue preference to the privately-owned sector of the industry and—that part which is transferred into private hands. We fear that they may turn round, and having guaranteed to that part of the industry the material which it requires say, "Look how appallingly badly the public-owned sector is performing under these conditions. Look how superior private ownership is and how inferior the activities of public ownership." It may be no more than a dangerous suspicion in our minds, and maybe we are over fond of dangerous suspicion but there is the suspicion and it would be well if the Minister could ease our minds upon it.


The position under the Clause as drafted is that, provided arrangements for importation are reasonably satisfactory, the Board has no power actively to intervene in distribution at all. The Minister must have envisaged some difficulties in this field of importation and distribution in private hands. If he had not envisaged some possibility of breakdown he would not be throwing over the good old Conservative tenet that these things are best left in private hands, and would not have introduced into this Bill the modicum of provision for intervention which there is at the moment.
If he accepts the case that there may be something quite wrong for some reason with importation and distribution, I cannot see why he cannot break that down, from the point of view of good administrative practice, into two separate halves, so that intervention can be exercised on one side or the other. If the Minister is not prepared to do this, then what he has done is what he has done in so many Clauses in this Bill so far. He has given the power and then set about carefully and artistically and with the help of the best legal advice from the Government so to hedge round this power with possible conditions, sub-conditions and restrictions that it can never be effectively put into operation.
Therefore, this leads us to assume that unless the Minister is prepared to accept this series of Amendments, this is one of the sham Clauses among the other sham Clauses in the Bill.

The Temporary Chairman: Before I call on the right hon. Member to reply, may I say that upon reflection I think that the Minister was right and that I was wrong, and I take this opportunity to apologise?

Mr. Sandys: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Thomas, for relieving me of the anxiety to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) over the very wide field which he traversed in the course of proposing this comparatively narrow Amendment. Under the scope of the words "and/or" it seems that he is able to deal with many of the broadest issues of the industry, present, past and future, and I congratulate him on his dexterity in handling this matter.
Each of the four Amendments, curiously enough, is sponsored by a different group of hon. Members pposite.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: They are all of the one mind.

Mr. Fienburgh: There are no splits on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Sandys: If they all duplicated one another I could understand it. Anybody reading the Order Paper would come to the conclusion at first sight that the Amendments were quite unconnected with each other. I can only assume that it was an ingenious cover plan to conceal from the enemy that the four moves were part of a fully integrated combined operation

Mr. Jack Jones: In the public interest.

Mr. Mikardo: The Minister has guessed right.

Mr. Sandys: The Amendment proposes that wherever in the Clause the words "importation or distribution" occur there shall be substituted "importation and distribution."

Mr. Fienburgh: It is the other way round.

Mr. Sandys: We shall get very confused over these "and" and "ors." The proposal is that wherever "Importation and distribution" occurs there shall be substituted "importation or distribution."
The purpose of the group of Amendments is to empower the Board to intervene in the arrangements either for importation or for distribution but not necessarily both, are unsatisfactory. It is urged that the Board should have the right to make alternative arrangements for either of those two functions but not necessarily for both.
It is exceedingly difficult to separate the functions of importation and distribution, particularly in regard to the Amendment to line 22, which deals with the importation of finished steel for the engineering industry. It is right that the Board should concern itself with the distribution—I prefer "allocation"—of imported raw materials among the various iron and steel producing companies, but in our view it is quite inappropriate for the Board to attempt to allocate finished steel among the consuming industries. If


an allocation scheme is necessary in a period of shortage such as the present, we consider that the Government alone is qualified to judge the relative importance of the competing claims of the various metal-using industries.
It will be seen from the second paragraph of subsection (2) that, in deciding whether finished steel should be imported, as distinct from the importation of raw materials, which arises under subsection (1), the Board is asked to apply one criterion only, namely, whether the available supplies are inadequate. There is deliberately no mention in subsection (2) as to whether the allocation of the available supplies of finished steel is satisfactory. For the reasons which I have given, we consider that it is not for the Board to allocate steel among the various firms of the engineering, shipbuilding and other metal-using industries.
I am afraid that some confusion may have arisen in the minds of hon. Members owing to the use of the word "distribution" in two senses in subsections (1) and (2). In subsection (1) "distribution" means the sale of imported materials and. in addition, the decision as to which producers and in what quantities the imported material should be offered; the word covers not only the sale but also the allocation of the imported raw materials. On the other hand, in subsection (2) "distribution" means nothing more than the actual sale of the imported finished steel; the Board's functions there consist solely of importing finished steel and adding it to the general pool which is available for industry as a whole; thus, under subsection (2) the Board is not concerned with the problem of allocation.
To remove any doubts on this point I propose—I hope the Committee will agree that it is right—to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage to substitute "sale" for "distribution" in subsection (2). When that is done, it will be seen that, since the Board is not to be concerned with the allocation of finished steel, there is no object in giving it the power to sell finished steel which it has not imported. When the meaning of "distribution" in subsection (2) is clarified in that way, I hope hon. Members will agree that no purpose will remain in the Amendment proposed to line 22.
8.30 p.m.
The other three Amendments which remain are in line 5, to leave out second "and," and to insert "or"; in line 10, to leave out "and," and to insert "or"; and in line 14, to leave out "and," and to insert "or" These relate to the importation of raw materials for the steel industry itself. The Amendment in line 22 also to leave out "and," and insert" or, was concerned with imported finished steel, while the other Amendments are concerned with the importation of raw materials for use inside the steel industry itself.
Here again, it is, in my view, difficult to separate importation from distribution. The Board cannot distribute raw materials it does not own. It is most unlikely that the Board will be able to buy raw materials which have been imported by somebody else. In practice, if the Board wishes to distribute imported raw materials in this country, it will have to import them itself.
On the other hand, there is—and I am quite prepared to recognise it—the remote possibility that the Board might import raw materials, and then sell them to merchants or to a central distributing organisation working on behalf of the industry as a whole. Either the merchants or the central organisation would then distribute them to the various iron and steel companies. In that case, the Board would not be concerned with distribution in the sense of allocation.
My own belief is that if the Board is to take the trouble to import raw materials into this country it will in all probability wish to allocate them itself in order to ensure that there is an equitable and sensible distribution. Nevertheless, if hon. Members opposite attach importance to this point I am quite prepared to accept the Amendments in lines 5 and 14. I have disposed of those Amendments to the best of my ability and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the Committee.
The Amendment in line 10 which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is left. I hope, with the cooperation of hon. Members opposite, to be able to dispose of this last Amendment. I say "co-operation" because I cannot accept this Amendment, but I hope to convince hon. Members opposite


that it is undesirable. The hon. Member for Islington, North, who moved it, accused us of faulty drafting. This Amendment is based upon a grammatical confusion, and I am surprised that it should have been tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering because he has rightly earned a reputation in the House for lucid exposition, if not always for conciseness.
I would ask hon. Members to give me their close attention while I try to convince them that this Amendment is not desirable. The intention, as I understand it, is that if the Board considers that existing arrangements for importation or distribution are unsatisfactory, it should then have the right to intervene. I would ask hon. Members to take the Bill and read it with me. Let us turn to Clause 9, on page 9. If we leave out the words which are not relevant to this issue, this subsection reads:
If the Board are satisfied…that satisfactory arrangements do not exist…for securing such importation and distribution…the Board may make arrangements…
That means that if arrangements for importation and distribution are not both satisfactory, the Board are empowered to step in. If, on the other hand, we substitute "or" for "and," the Clause will read:
If the Board are satisfied…that satisfactory arrangements do not exist…for securing such importation or distribution…the Board may make arrangements,
If the Amendment were adopted, the Board could intervene only if arrangements for importation and distribution were both unsatisfactory.

Mr. Mikardo: O.K. You have got it.

Mr. Sandys: It is the negative which causes the confusion. After that explanation, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite do not press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Mitchison: I have every sympathy for the Minister. I thought there was a point of law coming when the Solicitor-General left the Chamber a short time ago. I do not think the Minister is any more right than the Solicitor-General, but he is often a great deal more lucid. He only made his point by leaving out words of substance. I shall not take up the time of the Committee except to ask

what would happen if we put in the words "importation or distribution as the case may be"? That would make it a little bit clearer. It is really a point of grammar and construction, and it would be a sheer waste of time to press the Amendment. I would ask the Minister to get well away from the Solicitor-General and to take some sound advice whether what is suggested does not convey the obvious meaning better than the present language of the Clause.

Mr. Robson Brown: I followed the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) in the part of his speech which was completely out of order, about the distribution of home-produced raw material supplies. I fear that I shall be equally out of order by saying that I entirely support and sympathise with the point of view he expressed on that aspect of the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. D. L. Mort: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the end. to insert:
without discrimination between iron and steel producers.
The Minister said that the speech made by my hon. Friend had curtailed his reply. I am in a worse difficulty, because the speech of the hon. Gentleman has curtailed my speech almost to nothing. However, I am quite prepared to deal with this Amendment from a specific standpoint, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to apply himself to what I say, because I am not speaking on behalf of myself or even of my hon. Friends. I have moved this Amendment on a direct instruction and as an expression of the keen sentiments of the largest trade union operating in the steel trade. They are very much concerned about the powers, opportunities and privileges which will be enjoyed in the trade by what I call the big section.
This fear has arisen not because of any theoretical dissertation upon an economic question but because of the past experience of those who work in the steel trade. The distribution of materials is the most effective weapon in the hands of the big section. Reference was made to the division there will be in the industry because the cream will be taken. If one goes into a market it is quite natural to buy the best, but in this


case a section of the industry will be left outside. There is a saying in the trade, "Always feed the fat pigs." What does that mean? In steel trade language it means that the furnace which is working well will get the best scrap. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has had that experience many times.
The workers in the industry say, "Yes, we see all this, but these great powerful units will, naturally, feed the fat pig." I want the Committee to realise that the steel trade is composed not only of big sections, but of hundreds of small people. It may sound incongruous to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we on this side are supporting the small man, but we have always done that as long as he is efficient.
This Amendment seeks to ensure that there shall be no discrimination and that the small man shall not be crushed out of existence by the holding back of raw materials. Those small sections, such as the fittings and socket makers in the Midlands, do not make large demands on raw materials, but they are essential. I know of a tin works in my town, a small family affair, not belonging to any of the big combines. I wonder how it will fare by comparison with these big sections of the industry. We are asking for a square deal and the people in the industry would like an assurance of it.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned Trostre. It is not only a question of Trostre, but of the whole of South Wales. I know there is a committee going into this question and making recommendations, but it is no use doing so if the machine is not to operate in that direction. There will be calls made for raw materials, calls more from the sociological than the economic and industrial side.
8.45 p.m.
We are not suggesting that the makers of steel are evil men. They are not, but their job is that of making steel. They have given plenty of evidence that they can see the other side of the problem in the redundancy schemes now in operation in South Wales. Their job is to make steel and our job here is to see that people who have worked in this trade for a lifetime shall be insulated from some of the worst storms we can see gathering.

I know that it is not possible for the Minister to say that a definite allocation can be made, but we want him to accept the Amendment so that if there should be a hook on which someone can hang his hat, he can do so. That is another saying in the industry. If in the future there is a desire on the part of some person or of the Corporation to assist a steel works or tin works in order to insulate them from bad economic effects, the Minister should give the opportunity to that person or the Corporation.

Mr. Jack Jones: I support the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). This Amendment ought to appeal first and foremost to the Government. We have been telling the Government, rightly—and we still tell them—that they will have great difficulty in selling the whole of this industry. We have agreed that it might be possible to sell a part, but the Government, in their own interests, ought to be quite certain that there shall be no discrimination between those who will have advantages beyond the fair shares they now have and those who will be denied advantages because of the raw materials supply question, which will be difficult for some time to come.
We make no bones about it; we ate mindful of the fact that those who proceed to buy the industry will do so having first asked for and obtained certain guarantees. No one will buy even the modern part of the industry unless he is assured that something more than is provided in the way of interest is to be gained. Their one intention will be that of obtaining something by which they will make a profit. Profits can only be made by having technically efficient capacity used 100 per cent. having regard to the supply of a full percentage of raw materials.
We are concerned that the Agency should be left with organisations under their control which shall not suffer by virtue of the demand of the privately-owned section for increases in raw materials. The Government should make certain, if they want to prove that they can sell the lot, that they take great care of the part which we believe will be difficult to sell. That is a simple and reasonable request. We know something of what has been referred to as the fatted pig and which I prefer to call petted conditions.


The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) and, in a more remote and theoretical way, the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) know to what I am referring. They know that there are charts to show the effect locally. Although I have not been inside it, I understand that Steel House has a lot of charts showing production levels. Under nationalisation, production has always gone up. But that is beside the point and I shall be out of order if I continue to discuss that subject.
We want the Minister to bear this in mind, because if he wishes the Agency to get out of this miserable business of having to sell something which is difficult to sell, then, sooner rather than later, he himself, via the Board, must see that that they get a fair share in the allocation of raw materials.
We know that people think that the raw materials of this country are something we dig from our own ore beds. But we do not make steel altogether from the ore produced in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. Good quality steel can only be produced by using foreign ore. I have used a great many types of ore in my time and the best ore I ever used was Quillivar, the Spanish ore, which will be very largely used in their own steel works which are being erected. But if the Minister wishes to keep the good will of this country, we ask him that those who will least best be served may have a fair allocation.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: I sympathise with the misgivings and motives which inspired the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). I may not be correct in my interpretation of the exact implication of these words, but even the hon. Member for Reading with all his experience was recently in error on a similar point. As I read it, this Amendment would tie up the Board very tightly in the consideration of the conditions under which allocations of raw materials may be made. In the Scottish industry, we recently had a situation where, for technical reasons, the difficulties facing that industry owing to shortages of scrap were very much greater proportionately than those affecting steel producing firms in other areas.
If this Amendment were carried, it might make it difficult for the Board in

future to meet regional difficulties of this kind, or in times of acute shortage to face other difficulties arising out of varying economic considerations or those of the wider aspects of Government policy. In times of shortage, in the interests of the industry as a whole, it might, for example, be necessary, though it may be harsh, for there to be some discrimination in favour of those new plants in which enormous capital investment has been sunk.
I disagree with hon. Gentlemen opposite and maintain that such plans are most likely to be left until the last in the hands of the Agency, rather than be the first to be sold. For instance, I understand that the capitalisation of the Steel Company of Wales is something like £85 per ton, compared with about £3 per ton in the case of Colvilles.
Reference is made in the Amendment to the iron as against the steel section of the industry. There may be conditions, where either from the internal situation of the industry or for some other reason it is necessary to stimulate a certain line of production, for example, that of shipbuilding plates, or, for strategic reasons, of steel for shells, or on the iron foundry side may be necessary, at a time of raw material shortages, to stimulate production of certain lines. For instance, at Question time today we had a discussion about extensive agricultural drainage schemes, so it might, to give another instance. be necessary for a short period to stimulate the output of iron pipes.
I am simply illustrating my point by hypothetical instances, to support my contention, that there is a great deal to be said for flexibility in this Clause, governed against any unfairness or excess by the phrase, "satisfactory arrangements," and for not tying the Board down to rigid arrangements, such as would be introduced by the acceptance of this Amendment.

Mr. Charles Williams: I am not particularly enamoured with the words of this Amendment. I am not sure that it is practical to insert them here. But in Committee on a Bill of this sort perhaps I may be allowed to say a word, speaking as one who is not deeply involved in the steel industry, but who has seen a good deal of legislation passed and who realises that when great powers are


conferred on a Board care should be taken.
This Amendment gives one an opportunity to say that the Minister or the Board should not allow people with great power to rule out the smaller people. A certain firm or a certain section of the industry may not be able to develop without help of some kind. It may be necessary to give help in the distressed areas. Where we have licences and great power such as is conferred by this Bill, we ought to have an assurance that the power will not be used unfairly and that the greatest possible regard will be shown to the smaller businesses.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) will succeed in persuading the Minister, but I should like to say that he moved his Amendment with great skill and showed much more ability for oratory than is usually shown by the right hon. Gentlemen on his own Front Bench. As an ordinary back bencher, I express the view that the Minister might give an assurance that these powers will not be used in such a way that the small man is ruled out or that there are abuses of the system which sometimes arise when Government Departments are given special power to deal with licences.

Mr. Robson Brown: I rise to support the general line of argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and also to endorse the remarks he made about the thoughtful and constructive speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort). We pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East as one of the men in the House of Commons who speaks from an experience of the steel industry for which we greatly respect him.
The arguments he used were quite clear. He spoke not only from the heart but also from his knowledge in South Wales, and on that matter I should like to suppor: what he said. In this connection, raw materials are not always iron ore or scrap or metals of that kind. Raw materials for one factory may be the semi-finished material of another. It may be that in certain parts of the country there are small organisations under personal control which have built up over a long period a specialised trade outside the general run of steel production which could continue for many years to come

to make a decent profit, to show a decent return and to justify their existence so long as they were assured of a supply of the raw materials for their purpose.
If that were so, I think that the Board should assist. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will show sympathy for this suggestion. It has often been said that we have to consider the sociological consequences of any act of any Board. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay put that point well. Sometimes a Board, in considering the great issues of the day, will forget the impact of their actions upon a small community. It is within the knowledge of many of us, not least the hon. Member for Swansea, East, that there are small works which support small communities which are no less desirable because they are small. As I see it, there may well be sympathetic consideration by the Board, resulting in a much more permanent and enduring life for many of these works than would otherwise he the case.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Low: The Committee has already made quite clear their approval of the manner in which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort) opened this short debate, and I should like to join with the rest of the Committee in thanking him for and congratulating him upon the speech he made. We are very glad that he raised this point.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) guessed in his short speech, the concern for the small people in the steel trade is a point which very much appeals to us on this side of the Committee, and we quite understand, as will all other hon. Members, the fear which the hon. Member for Swansea, East expressed about the big concerns. We can well understand those fears, but our feeling about this Amendment is that it is unnecessary, and I will explain to the Committee why that is so.
The Amendment seeks to insert the words "without discrimination between iron and steel producers." My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) made the point that it is possible to have some discrimination in certain circumstances which may be quite justifiable, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment meant by discrimination was


unfair discrimination. Surely, if the discrimination is unfair, it would be covered by the words in line 9 as the Clause is at present drafted, which state that satisfactory arrangements do not exist and operate for securing importation and distribution.
Surely nobody would argue that arrangements for distribution which included unfair discrimination could possibly be satisfactory? It might be argued that, even though I was right on that point, we should agree to accept the Amendment because we are of one mind in the Committee about the feeling behind it, but we would advise the Committee that that would be wrong, because we would be selecting only one possible matter in which the arrangements might be unsatisfactory and it would be a mistake to single out only one matter.
Obviously, there are other possible ways in which these arrangements may be unsatisfactory. For example, the arrangements for importation may not lead to sufficient iron ore being imported into the country, and the arrangements for distribution might not be efficient. There might be all sorts of other ways in which the arrangements might not be satisfactory, and our advice to the Committee is that it is much better to leave the words "satisfactory arrangements," wide as they are. We are satisfied, as I hope the Committee will be, that these words would preclude that unfair discrimination which it is the object of all hon. Members to avoid.

Mr. Mikardo: I think there is some substance in what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, and I would be much more inclined to agree entirely with what he said if I had not sat through the Committee stage of the 1949 Act and heard Conservative Members of that Committee put forward an argument which was, in a sense, almost directly contrary to the one which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward. If the Parliamentary Secretary, who was not a member of that Committee, if my memory serves me, will refresh himself by reference to it, he will find that Section 3 of the Iron and Steel Act lays a general duty upon the Corporation
to promote the efficient and economical supply of the products,

and so on. It could be argued as easily as the Parliamentary Secretary argued his case that Section 3 (1, a) of that Act would not be met if any discrimination against one class of person or firm were exercised.
Nevertheless, during the proceedings, the then Opposition said over and over again that we ought to make it crystal clear that there must be no discrimination and, indeed, hon. Members opposite moved an Amendment to that effect and my right hon. Friend, then the Minister in charge of the Bill, who was eager to make it crystal clear that in no Bill promoted by a Labour Government was there any desire to see any unfair discrimination against anybody, accepted the Amendment, even though he said he thought it was superfluous. He accepted it in order that the position should be beyond argument and so that nobody could feel that he was being discriminated against.
May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might well follow that example? He may well be right in saying that in the interpretation of the word "satisfactory" which the Iron and Steel Board will make they will consider a thing unsatisfactory if it is discriminatory but, after all, no one can forecast precisely what interpretation will be placed by a Board not yet set up upon a word so round as the word "satisfactory."
Since he paid tribute to the sense behind the Amendment and to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort)—which terrified my hon. Friend, because he was in fear that a knighthood might be following—I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to follow the example of my right hon. Friend and to make assurance doubly sure. It may well be that he would wish to change the wording of the Amendment and perhaps to introduce the word "unfair before the word "discrimination." He may wish to narrow the Amendment in that way, but if he does, or even if he wishes to narrow it further, I would refer him to Section 3 (1, b) of the 1949 Act, the wording of which was almost entirely inspired by his hon. Friends.
I suggest to him that if he thinks the wording on the paper is a little too wide, then he should consider narrowing it, but that, even though there is a possibility


that it is a work of supererogation, he should nevertheless insert some words which make it quite clear that there will be no discrimination.

Mr. Low: We listen with care to the points made by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), and study them afterwards as we do with the speeches of all hon. Members in the Committee, but I think that what I said earlier, with the general tenor of which the hon. Member seemed to agree, will have satisfied the Committee that the words "satisfactory arrangements" already cover the point.
The hon. Member referred to the 1949 Act but, of course, there are two very important differences between the Corporation and the wording of Section 3 (1, a) of that Act, on one hand, and the Board and the wording of Clause 9 (1, b) of this Bill, on the other hand. The differences are these. First, the Board have no interest in any particular part of the industry. The Corporation, on the other hand, had a very close interest in looking after the interests of the companies under the Corporation. The Board are responsible for the whole of the industry. That is the difference.
The second difference is that the wording in Section 3 (1, a) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, is
to promote the efficient and economical supply…
Nowhere do I find the word "satisfactory" It is that word that I have been interpreting and which the Committee were asked to interpret on this Amendment. For those two reasons the fears which the hon. Member has in mind are unjustified. But I do not think that we want to go on this point very much longer and I certainly assure him that we shall have a look at the point he has made and see whether we are right, as I hope we are.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11, at the end, to insert:
and that such arrangements cannot be secured by means of such consultation as aforesaid.
This is a very small Amendment which first of all seeks to bring the procedure under this Clause into line with that in Clause 4 (2). Furthermore, it is an

Amendment which I think is in keeping with the principles of this Bill and with the general attitude of the Government to the industry and to the Board. The object of the Clause and of this Amendment is to ensure that the power of the Board shall be ultimate power and that consultation with the industry shall take place so that every effort may be made to secure the arrangements which are required. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will see fit to accept this Amendment, which lines up with the principle already involved in the Clause.

Mr. Sandys: This Amendment deals with the question of consultation in connection with the decision of the Board to import raw materials. If the Board consider that the arrangements for the importation or distribution—as we have now amended the Bill—are not satisfactory, the Board can then step in and set up alternative arrangements themselves.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) is asking that this Clause should be brought into conformity with the procedure under Clause 4 and that the Board, having come to the conclusion that the arrangements are not satisfactory, should have a duty, before deciding to step in themselves, to try to persuade the industry itself to put matters right before the Board intervene. It seems to me that that is what a sensible Board would do in any case, but I am quite happy to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: I am surprised that the Minister accepts this Amendment, because it seems to be one of very great moment indeed. I understand the purpose in moving and accepting the Amendment, of course. If there are consultations with some interested party about a situation being unsatisfactory, it is extremely sensible that they should be given a chance to make it satisfactory before the Board come down and use compulsory powers. But what does the Minister mean by a chance? How wide and how long a chance? Is there any time limit, or is the Board allowed to go on playing about for ever?
9.15 p.m.
Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman. If he accepts the Amendment and it is carried, what will happen


will be that the Board will not be able to take the action envisaged here unless it is satisfied that such arrangements cannot be secured by means of such consultation. Whatever it is that has gone wrong, I feel perfectly sure that it would be put right by the industry in five years or in 10 years or in 20 years or in 40 years, but the matter may be urgent; so that in fact if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment—I am putting this very seriously to the Minister—he will vitiate the whole of Clause 9 altogether and make it really a window-dressing Clause.
If the Minister accepts the Amendment, there will be no conditions under which the Board will be able to take action under Clause 9, because whatever goes wrong, whatever failure there is to make satisfactory arrangements for securing importation or distribution, whatever has gone wrong with importation or distribution, the Board will come along to the industry and say, "Cannot you manage to put this thing right?" and it may well say, "Yes, give us 10 years "—or 15 years or 20 years.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that nobody would be so foolish as to take as long as that, but when we are considering an Act of Parliament we have to be concerned with the wording of the Act of Parliament, and if this Amendment were made it would literally mean that, unless it were possible for the industry to correct a defect, even given a half century to do it, the Board would not be able to take action at all. I want to put it to the Minister that he is running the danger of its being said that this Clause is purely a window-dressing Clause and that it is not intended that the Board shall take action at any time.
I do hope that the Minister will look at this again. I do not attribute to it base motives, and I do not think that the motive of the right hon. Gentleman is to vitiate the Clause at all, because if he wanted to do that he would have done it himself and not left it to one of his hon. Friends to do it for him. I think that the Minister, not seeing the import of the Amendment, in the kindness of his heart thought he would do a good turn to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) and thought he would accept the

Amendment, but I beg him to look at it again, and to reconsider it quickly indeed, to see if it is not as I suggest, that the Board would be prevented, by this apparently simple, innocuous little Amendment, from taking action at any time whatsoever under Clause 9. If that be so, he may wish to change the views he has expressed to the Committee.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: In case my right hon. Friend should go away with the words of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) ringing in his ears, I should like to suggest that there is a very, very short answer to his point, and that is that "satisfactory arrangements" means satisfactory arrangements. "Such arrangements" means satisfactory arrangements, and, surely it is quite idle to suggest that arrangements which might be made after five or 10 years of consultation could possibly be satisfactory arrangements.

Mr. Mikardo: Of course they could.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I merely want to add that surely the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) exaggerated the position when he said that these words might be construed as impossible of performance in less than 15 years or 20 years. Surely, as in matters of law when no time is specified, the commonsense application of a really reasonable time would be what, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) has said, would be satisfactory, and that would be the obvious answer to this, and certainly a time of 20 years would be totally unreasonable, and, as he has said, totally unsatisfactory.

Mr. Mikardo: I suggest that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) are wrong about this. The words "satisfactory arrangement" do not apply to the process of making or concluding the arrangement, but apply to the nature of the arrangement that has been concluded. It is perfectly feasible to have an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory in nature when it has been concluded, but the process of making which is totally unsatisfactory. That is the point I was making.

Mr, G. R. Strauss: I, too, regret that the Minister has accepted this Amendment. He rejected the last Amendment we moved, although everyone agreed there was great point in it, because he thought it was redundant and unnecessary and its purpose was already covered. Surely what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) has in mind here is already completely covered, and the addition of these words is wholly unnecessary. If the Minister is unwilling to accept our suggested additional words, which we all agree were important, on the ground that they were redundant, I am sorry that he should accept these words, because I should have thought they were utterly redundant.
The Board have got to be satisfied
after consultation with such representative organisations as they consider appropriate … that satisfactory arrangements do not exist.
That surely means that the Board calls the people together and says, "Look here, the situation is not very good. What about it? What can be done about it?" That surely means that if the people consulted say, "We are working in this direction and everything is going to be all right; you do not need to worry," then the Board does not take any action in the matter. That is surely the common sense of it.
If the words in the Amendment are added and the point is rubbed in, I should have thought it would make the position of the Board very difficult, because they might well say, "According to the letter of the law it may be that, as a result of these consultations, in future, at some time or other, satisfactory arrangements can be made." I should have thought that, if representative organisations are putting up long-term plans, or vague plans, or plans which the Board think may not ever be carried out satisfactorily, the Board would have to hesitate before taking the necessary action, and this might, indeed, endanger our imports of raw materials.
The position was fully covered by the Clause as it stood, but it is weakened and endangered by the inclusion of these words. Whatever the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the words are unnecessary. We shall not vote against the Amendment, there are other and more important

things ahead; but we think it regrettable that the Minister should accept this Amendment, particularly as he did not accept our Amendment previously on the grounds that the words of our Amendment were redundant.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I should like to make a further plea to the Minister to think again about this. He has been a little hasty at jumping in and accepting this Amendment, because the inclusion of these words means that in this respect initiative is taken from the Board and given to representative organisations. The only circumstances in which satisfactory arrangements cannot be made will be when the representative organisations cannot agree about a certain thing, and if they want to keep up that state of uncertainty we ought not to give them the initiative to wreck any proposals the Board could bring forward to make them satisfactory. That seems to me the whole purpose of the Amendment, whether it is what was intended or not. I think the Minister would be wise if he agreed to look at this again, because if it is really necessary he could put down an Amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Sandys: The last thing in the world I want is a disagreement about words of this kind which I believe, as the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) very fairly said, were put forward by my hon. Friend, and accepted by me with every good intention. I still think it is desirable to amend this Clause to bring it into conformity with Clause 4. Although I have no doubt the Board would do so in any case, I think we should make it clear that we wish the industry to be given the chance to put their own house in order if the Board is not satisfied with existing arrangements. Naturally we do not want the Board to intervene when things could be quickly put right by the industry if its shortcomings were pointed out. I am sure that is the wish of the Committee.
I recognise the validity of the point made by several hon. Members, and the last thing either I or, I am sure, my hon. Friend want is that there should be a loop-hole here which would impede the action of the Board where they thought it necessary. If the Committee will agree, will accept the Amendment as it stands, and between now and the Report stage


look at it to see if it is desirable to include some such words as "expeditiously" or "in reasonable time," that is, of course, in the opinion of the Board. I hope that will satisfy hon. Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. George Darling: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall undertake or."
In moving this Amendment, I am afraid that I must upset the rather friendly atmosphere which has been so far enjoyed today. This is a very important Amendment and one which raises a matter of principle. The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. We want to give the Board authority—real authority and not sham authority—to ensure that the steel industry shall get all the raw materials that it needs. Good supplies of raw material are, of course, essential to the proper development of the industry and to its production programme.
It has been obvious in all that we have said about the need for a continuing expansion of the industry that the raw materials situation has to be looked at. It is equally clear that in this part of the Bill, at any rate, the Government realise that full and adequate supplies of raw materials, largely iron ore and scrap, cannot be left to chance, and that someone has to ensure that the supplies of raw materials come along in adequate quantities at the right time.
It is quite clear that on behalf of the industry the Board must make sure that proper arrangements—effective and efficient arrangements—have been made to give the iron and steel industry all the raw materials that it needs. Emphasis in this part of the Bill is on imports of iron ore. In the nature of things the industry will have to rely less and less on imported scrap. In fact, the blast furnace development of the industry that is going on is in a large measure designed to make the industry less dependent upon imported scrap. There will always he some scrap coming from home sources. from ship-breaking and so on, but the industry will have to increase its imports of iron ore considerably if steel production is to go on increasing.
I gather that the measure of increase that is contemplated is in the region of

50 per cent. above the present import arrangements, and it may be even higher. All this is admitted by the industry itself and by the Government in this Bill. But the position is extremely serious, and we have to make sure that iron ore supplies will be coming in adequately. We must bear in mind the big and growing demands of the steel producers in the United States and of the European steel producers for whatever iron ore is available in the world.
Indeed, in the White Paper the imperative need to make sure that iron ore imports are kept at a high level is very strongly stressed. It is worth while, I think, to draw the attention of the Committee to the words of the White Paper dealing with the supply of raw materials. In paragraphs 19 and 20 it is stated:
The Board will keep under review the distribution of raw materials, including scrap,
and it goes on to say:
In times of shortage … it is the Government's intention that the Board should control the distribution of scarce raw materials.
9.30 p.m.
The words "should control" are worth noting. In paragraph 20 the White Paper says:
The Board will be empowered themselves to take steps to secure the imports required, should they consider the industry's arrangements inadequate.
Those are strong words.
When we come to the Bill all those brave words have disappeared. The word "control" does not appear anywhere in the Bill. Instead, we have a very much watered-down version of the White Paper. The Bill now says that if the private arrangements for importing and distributing iron ore are unsatisfactory the Board may consider making other arrangements, that it may appoint agents, or it may set up companies to do the job. But the Bill places no compulsion on the Board to make sure that the importation of iron ore is efficiently and adequately organised.
We believe that the Government's first thoughts as expressed in the White Paper are correct. This matter is crucial to the whole industry and also to the economic well-being of the nation. Because we recognise the crucial importance of adequate supplies of iron ore being made available to the industry, we want the Government to put the strong words of


the White Paper into the Bill. We should like to know why the Government have run away from the White Paper's phrases. I believe the Government have changed their views, wording and emphasis because of the pressure put upon them by the Iron and Steel Federation, either directly or indirectly.
We must remember that the Iron and Steel Federation, which is a private cartel, has its own iron ore importing company. Under the Bill the private company run by this private cartel, over which the Board will have no control, will be completely in charge of the iron ore imports of the country. Hon. Members opposite will argue that B.I.S.C. (Ore) is a public-sprited concern, that it will not do anything contrary to the public interest and that it will do everything the Iron and Steel Board will want the importing company to do. That may be true, but we should give the industry some guarantee that that is not merely wishful thinking.
We know of the experience of the Iron and Steel Corporation. The Corporation wanted to intervene in the activities of the B.I.S.C. (Ore), but the Iron and Steel Federation soon told the Corporation that its intervention would not be permitted. If a body like the Corporation, which had a legal authority over the iron and steel industry, could not ensure proper supervision of imports by its intervention in the activities of B.I.S.C. (Ore), there will be little chance that the weak and ineffective supervisory Board establised by the Bill will be able to intervene if intervention should become necessary.
The Bill says that the Board may intervene if the ore import arrangements prove unsatisfactory. What does that mean in practice? If the import arrangements are unsatisfactory, as they may well be, the Board will first have to consult 'the appropriate sections of the industry, which means that it will start consultations with Steel House. That means that its discussions will be with a body which it is suggesting has not made satisfactory arrangements. The experiences of the Iron and Steel Corporation have shown that Steel House will not tolerate any interference with its importing company.
Therefore, there is the inevitable prospect that if things go wrong with the industry—and it may be that some sections may want to go back to the kind

of restrictionist policy which went on in the inter-war years—there will be a conflict between the Iron and Steel Board and Steel House, and we should try to guarantee against that. In such a conflict Steel House is bound to win because it has got all the cards in its hand. The Board has got to go to Steel House for information because it will not have any technical or information services of its own. It will have to depend on the Federation for most of its technical services, and, therefore, in such a conflict the cards will all be in the hands of Steel House.
Under the provisions of this Bill in such a conflict there is no provision at all for the Minister or anyone else to intervene to make sure that the industry is going to come out of such a conflict in a way that the national interests will not be upset. We think that the solution to all this is that we should give the industry a guarantee that its raw materials and particularly its iron ore supplies will be satisfactorily and sufficiently arranged. If the Board would take over B.I.S.C.(Ore) right away that would meet the case. I know that is a solution that will not be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, and if we cannot have such forthright action, which I think is necessary for the well being of the industry written into the Bill, and get the Board to take over the B.I.S.C. (Ore) from the beginning, we have got to make it possible for the Board to set up its own importing agency.
If the Board has that authority—not a permissive but a mandatory authority— if it is dissatisfied with the work of Steel House, it can make other arrangements that will guarantee the industry will get its supplies of raw materials. We should make it possible for one or other of these things to happen or, at any rate, to take the control of ore imports out of the hands of a private cartel. For that reason we suggest that the Committee would be acting in a responsible manner if they accepted this Amendment and inserted these words in the Bill.

Mr. Spencer Summers: I cannot help thinking that if it were desired to move this Amendment in terms deliberately designed to make it difficult for the Minister to accept it, then something like the speech to which we have just listened would, in fact, have that


effect. I am sorry that it was moved in the terms that it was because I, personally, take the view there is some substance in the point that lies behind the words on the Order Paper.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) may have overlooked the fact that considerable support came from this side of the Committee for that Amendment to Clause 4 which placed upon the Board the added task of taking an interest in the source of raw materials, and, if necessary, given power to provide capital so that reinforcement of supplies might be obtained from other sources. Already there has been quite a clear indication of the importance that we on this side of the Committee attach to the securing of adequate supplies of raw materials.
It is worth mentioning that the acceptance of my hon. Friend's previous Amendment should make it easier for the Minister to accept this Amendment, because before the Board can intervene and act directly to carry out instructions, as opposed to the option which this Amendment confers upon them, the preceding Amendment makes it necessary for the Board to make sure that what is required to be done could not be done by the industry. Only then will it be relevant for the Board to step in. The addition of the words in the previous Amendment has made it easier for the Minister to accept the present Amendment.
If, after it has been demonstrated through investigation that the sources of supply and the methods of distribution are thought to be unsatisfactory, after steps have been taken to provide a remedy, and after consultation with the industry, it is Still thought that the position is not satisfactory, I hardly think that we should be right to leave an option to the Board to do nothing about it. The Committee ought to take the view that after those steps have failed to produce the right result, it will be reasonable to place upon the Board an obligation to do something about it.

Mr. John Freeman: I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the arguments addressed to him both from this side of the Committee and his own side. I am not associating myself with the opening remarks of the hon. Member

for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers), but I thought that my hon. Friend's argument was very much to the point.
I was glad to hear the latter part of the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, because he seemed to put with considerable cogency the point that we are trying to put across. This point does not arise when the Board are satisfied about certain things, and, secondly, when they find that satisfaction after consultation. Thirdly, when they are not satisfied, they should have authority to see that something is done which cannot reasonably be accomplished in any other way. That conclusion is arrived at after full consultation with the industry.
Every conceivable hypothesis has been covered in what is a kind of preamble. The point that we are debating now is whether, at the end of all that, an optional, non-mandatory power is still to be left to the Board. It is scarcely credible that the Minister has not been advised to use his power or that he does not intend to use it. I hope it is not true, and I do not make that suggestion; but the Minister has to advance some remarkably cogent arguments, in the light of what my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, if he is to reject the Amendment. I hope he will realise, and I re-emphasise it, that the point can only arise after all hypotheses have been taken care of. If, when they get to that point, the Board are not to have mandatory power to make these changes, the Board's power will be entirely nugatory.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), in moving the Amendment, suggested that there was a serious inconsistency between the wording of the Bill and the wording of the White Paper, and that the weakening of the Bill, as he saw it, was the result of pressure from the wicked men in Steel House. Almost every sentence he uttered contained a remark about Steel House.

Mr. Mikardo: Has it been compared with what Lord Nuffield said about it?

Mr. Sandys: I assure the hon. Member that there has been no pressure of the kind he has suggested, and secondly, I hope that he will allow me to devote a moment or two to comparing the provisions of the White Paper on this point


with those of the Bill. He will then see that there is neither inconsistency nor weakening between the two.
9.45 p.m.
Paragraphs 19 to 20 of the White Paper which the hon. Member read out state:
The Board will keep under review the distribution of raw materials, including scrap.
That is covered by Clause 3 of the Bill. The paragraph continues, and I want to emphasise this:
In times of shortage, such as the present, when emergency powers are in operation, it is the Government's intention that the Board should control "—
We do not run away from the word "control" as the hon. Member suggested—
the distribution of scarce raw materials within the iron and steel industry under the authority of the Minister of Supply.
We explained what we have in mind during the debates on the White Paper and on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill provides that, when emergency powers are in operation we intend as far as possible to delegate the exercise of some of them to the Board. We have in mind particularly that the Board could deal with the distribution of scarce raw materials, such as pig iron and its allocation between steel makers and the foundries.
The next paragraph, to which the hon. Member also referred, states:
In view of the dependence of the United Kingdom upon supplies of high grade iron ore and other raw materials from abroad, the Board will have to assure themselves that the arrangements made by the industry for importation of the raw materials it requires and their distribution are satisfactory.
That refers to its general supervisory function. It continues:
The Board will be empowered themselves to take steps to secure the imports required, should they consider the industry's arrangements inadequate.
That is precisely what this Clause does; it gives the Board power, if they come to the conclusion that the existing arrangements are inadequate, to make alternative arrangements to secure the importation of raw materials.
There is a misunderstanding because the Bill fully covers what was stated in the White Paper and, with one exception to which I shall come, fully meets the wishes of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We said in the White

Paper that the Board will be empowered to take steps to secure raw materials; we did not say that the members of the Board would go out to buy theirs. They are "to take steps to secure" and that is precisely what this Clause empowers them to do.
The only difference between the Bill as it now stands and as it would be if the Amendment were adopted is, first, that the Board would be empowered to buy abroad and to import the raw materials themselves instead of employing agents to do so. I do not think there is a big point there; in fact the hon. Member himself summed up what he wanted by saying that the Board must be able to set up their own importing agency. The Bill enables them to do this. Employing agents to import raw materials is setting up their own agency. What we do not want is that the Board shall themselves get involved too directly in the business of buying and shipping raw materials. It is a specialised business and requires considerable specialised knowledge and experience which it is most unlikely that the members of the Board will possess.
We are not anxious to put into the Bill words which will encourage the Board to undertake executive and managerial duties in connection with the importation of materials. I do not believe that the Board would wish to do so. The normal thing, if they decided they wanted to secure raw materials, would be for them to employ a suitable agency, very much as the hon. Member suggested. However, this does not mean that we at all intend that their freedom to make arrangements for the importation of raw materials should in any way be limited.
I come to the other point, which I believe is more pertinent and important, namely, whether the Board's duty should be permissive or mandatory. As the Bill stands, it is left to the Board, having come to the conclusion that existing arrangements are not satisfactory, to decide whether they should intervene. After reading the Amendment I felt inclined to agree that, if the Board came to the conclusion that the arrangements for the importation and distribution of raw materials—which is vital to the industry were not satisfactory, it should not only be permitted but should have a positive


duty to take steps to put matters right. Therefore, if the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw the words "undertake or," which deal with the first part of the Amendment, I shall be happy to accept the second part, which I believe to be the more important, namely, the substitution of the word "shall" for "may."

Mr. Darling: I most certainly accept the offer of the Minister and I think we can be sure that the Board will act in the way we want it to act in the form of words which the Minister has accepted. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 12, leave out "may," and insert "shall."— [Mr. G. Darling.]

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 22, leave out "and," and insert "or."—[Mr. G. Darling.]

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, after "Minister," to insert:
after consultation with such representative organisations as the Board or the Minister consider or considers appropriate.
This Amendment is really dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the proviso to Clause 9, subsection (2), which lays down that there shall be consultation with those representative bodies referred to in my Amendment. In the proviso this procedure is not referred to specifically. I feel certain that it is intended that that procedure should be followed, in the same way as in the main Clause. In view of some of the observations made earlier, I have every confidence of the integrity and desire of the industry to complete their arrangements satisfactorily, and that is why I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: It is my intention to accept this Amendment and I hope I shall not encounter any difficulty from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Unlike my hon. Friend's previous Amendment which was concerned with raw materials, this deals with the importation of finished steel. Under subsection (2) of this Clause finished steel may be imported by the Board either on their own authority or on a direction from the Minister.

Before deciding to import finished steel on their own initiative the Board are required by the Bill to consult the industries concerned, but no similar obligation is placed upon the Minister.
I think it would be very unwise for a Minister to omit this obvious precaution, but I see no harm in including this Amendment in the Bill and with, I hope, the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I propose to accept it.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree entirely with what the Minister has said, but I suggest he looks at the wording of the Amendment again. He accepted it on the footing of applying it to the Minister. If be takes the Amendment as it is he will find that there has to be, as it were, two consultations by the Board and I cannot make clear the distinction between the two. It is not a matter we need to go into now, but I suggest that the language be looked at again.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, after "is," to insert, "or may become."
I do not propose to make very heavy weather of this Amendment, as I feel sure that the Minister will accept it, and I want, as I know he would want, it to appear he is accepting it of his own free will rather than as a result of the bludgeoning of an unaccustomed and uncharacteristic torrent of verbosity from myself. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Board or the Minister, as the case may be, can lock the door before the horse is stolen and not afterwards.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out in a very lucid explanation of the whole Clause, subsection (2), unlike subsection (1), concerns arrangements for the importation, not of raw materials but of steel products. If one takes the two together, what they mean, in non-legal language, is that if the Minister or the Board find there is inadequate supplies of an important form of iron and steel they can make arrangements for it to be imported.
The position may be better in the future, but we all know that in these days it sometimes takes a long time to obtain deliveries. One provincial Government


in Canada is in some difficulty at the moment as they cannot get pipes to carry a gas supply to the capital before the end of this year. It finds that the earliest delivery date it can get anywhere in the world is two and a half years.
10.0 p.m.
It would be silly if the Minister or the Board had to wait until there was an actual shortage before they could go off to place import orders. A good deal of thought is given in these days to the forecasting of demand requirements. Some of that thought is given by the much maligned sometimes unfairly—gentlemen of Steel House. It would be silly if we prevented ourselves from taking advantage of those forecasts. If, for example, we knew that certain types of tube would be in short supply six months hence although they were in adequate supply now, it would be wrong if we did not put in orders now. This case is so clear that I am sure that I need not urge it further.

Mr. Summers: Before the Minister replies, I should like to point out one aspect of this matter. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) took exception to an earlier Amendment about consultation on the ground that it might hold things up for five, 10 or 20 years. I hope that the Minister, in considering the wording of this Amendment, will bear in mind that the same argument which was adduced by the hon. Member for Reading, South on the preceding Amendment is equally relevant here.
If it was proper to add some words to bring consideration on the earlier point to the reasonably near future, it seems equally proper that similar words should be introduced here to make certain that the distant future is not something implied by the words on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mikardo: The two cases are not on all-fours, as I think the hon. Gentleman will see if he refers to the wording of the proviso Suppose we took his point and it appeared to the Board that the supply of products for use in Great Britain might become inadequate in 20 years' time, all that would happen in these circumstances would not be that the Board would be compelled to exercise their powers but that they could if they wanted to, taking all the circumstances into account. In other words, we

have here a double negative. All that the proviso does is to lay down the circumstances under which the Board must not, and the circumstances in which they must. That is the difference between this Amendment and the one moved earlier by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey).

Mr. Summers: I am prepared to leave the argument on the detailed wording to be dealt with by the Minister.

Mr. Low: Having once decided that there should be available this power to import finished steel when there was a shortage, we do not pretend that the power should be available only after a shortage has arisen and damage has been caused to the British economy. The question is what is meant by the word "supply."
I assure the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) that if there is doubt we will consider the matter further, but our view is that the words:
…the supply of those products for use in Great Britain is inadequate…
mean not only that there are at that moment insufficient products available in Great Britain but also that supplies, including such imports as private buyers may reasonably be expected to make, are inadequate to meet the demand in the near future. That was our view about the meaning of the words, but we will certainly consider whether we are right in view of what the hon. Gentleman said. We had already given the matter a good deal of consideration since the Amendment appeared on the Order Paper.
I now come to the actual words which the hon. Member suggests should be inserted to make the matter clear. In our view to accept the words, "or may become" would be to give the Board and the Minister too wide a power to import in anticipation of a possible shortage which may never arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) made the point, and, to emphasise it, went well into the future.
The point I am making is that, whatever one's views about how far it goes into the future, I think the Committee must agree that these words would give the Board power to import in anticipation of a possible shortage, which may never arise. We do not want to go as far as that, but we will consider again


what the words now in the Clause mean, and whether they are open to the criticism which the hon. Gentleman has made of them. If we decide that they are open to criticism or doubt, then we will come back at a later stage with words possibly to this effect—"is or is shortly about to become." That is the sort of point which we have in mind at the moment, and I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept the withdrawal of this Amendment on the assurance of further consideration which I have given.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to be quite clear about this, and I think so does my hon. Friend. Obviously, the Board cannot be certain about a shortage in the future, and what we want to be sure about is that, if it appears to the Board that there is likely to be a shortage in the future—not that there is to be any certainty about it, for it may never develop —but if it appears to the Board, after all the consultations which it has to make, that there is likely to be, or there is the presumption of, a shortage in the future, it can go in, and, through its agents, buy iron and steel and those things which it is empowered to do under Clause 2.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says that he proposes to meet us on that point by some words which are more appropriate than those in the Amendment, I feel sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, but we do not want him to come forward with words which will only enable the Board to act if they are certain that there will be a shortage in the future. We want them to act if there is an anticipated shortage in the future. and there is a great difference.

Mr. Low: I think the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) will have noticed that the words
…unless it appears to the Board or, as the case may be, to the Minister
already appear in the Clause. We have no intention of taking out those words or of detracting from their meaning, and nothing that I have said should lead the right hon. Gentleman to that opinion. I have no quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Mikardo: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and his

undertaking to give careful consideration to the point, may I express my thanks to him for the way in which he has met us, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(RESEARCH AND TRAINING.)

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, after "them" to insert:
after consultation with such representative organisations as they consider appropriate.
This Amendment requires the Board to consult with representative organisations about research, training and education, and it should be read in conjunction with the Amendment standing in my name to Clause 31, page 26, line 6. which enlarges the definition of "representative organisations" to include not only trade associations, but trade unions as well. I tabled this Amendment largely to meet the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to line 41.
There are two differences between my Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's. The first relates to the qualification which introduces the whole of the present Clause. These words appear at the beginning of Clause 10:
If and so far as existing arrangements appear to the Board to be inadequate
In his Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman omits that qualification. I do not know whether it was intentional; no doubt there was some good reason for it. In our opinion, it would be wasteful and confusing to give the Board power to intervene and to duplicate arrangements for research, training and education if the existing ones are working satisfactorily.
The second difference consists in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment specifies that there should be consultation only in respect of training and education, whereas my Amendment asks for consultation in respect of research, too. There is little doubt that, whether we put these words into the Bill or not, the Board will in fact ensure proper consultation on all three matters— research, training, and education. But if we are to dot the i's and cross the i's, then the requirement of consultation should apply to the whole Clause, or the impression will be given that we have specially excluded research.


I hope that, with that short explanation, the Committee will be willing to accept the Amendment and that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment to line 41.

Mr. C. R. Strauss: We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is not very much difference between his Amendment arid ours. There is certainly not sufficient difference to lead us to make a fuss about it or to argue about, and certainly not to vote about it. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, we do not propose to press our Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to move, in page 10, line 4, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 5.
I think that both sides of the Committee will agree that this is a short but nevertheless important Clause. It deals with research, education and training. obviously something of fundamental importance to a technical industry of the character of iron and steel. The principle of the Clause, as I read it, is that it is the duty of the Board to promote research, education and training and to grant loans for that purpose, but in the Clause as drafted there is the rather curious provision that the supervisory Board will be forbidden by Act of Parliament, if the Bill becomes law, to undertake such activities themselves.
I want to be brief, as time is pressing, but I want to explain why we on this side think that ban both wrong and unnecessary. Taking the question of research first, I can well see that arguments will be put forward that the iron and steel industry already has well-organised research facilitles, that indeed the industry operates the British Iron and Steel Research Association. I grant to those who will put forward that argument that that Association is very successful and is certainly one of the largest of its kind in the country.
We are anxious to be fair and I agree that the British Iron and Steel Research Association has done excellent work in both fundamental and applied research. It is quite clear that any supervisory Board of a public character would do nothing to hinder such work and, I presume, as a matter of course would encourage it. But

why in the name of common sense should the supervisory Board be forbidden by Act of Parliament from doing research itself if it sees an opportunity to do so?
I do not see why it should be forbidden by the law of the land to do it. After all, research in this country, which on the whole is still not inferior to that of any country in the world, has always been extraordinarily flexible. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that it has been a partnership between Government laboratories, universities, independent firms, voluntary associations and so on. To tidy minds—and I know that there are such on this side of the Committee—that might be considered as overlapping, but it can be argued by those who have experience of research activity —and I agree with them—that it often means check and counter-check and that it gets results.
If that rather mixed research system on which we pride ourselves so much in this country has worked so well in the past, why on this occasion should it be stopped by the law of the land, for that is what this Clause sets out to do? Why should this great public body, responsible to Parliament for a highly technical industry, be placed in the unique position of being warned off research? Nobody expects it to do the work of others, but it might well be allowed to do the work which in future it may consider to be specifically its own.
The same general argument holds good in respect of education and training. The case for this Amendment is just as strong in that field. We know of the excellent work which is done already in industry in apprenticeship schemes, area training schemes and so on. The latest Steel House report gives many details. Those who know something of this work will agree that much of the work is of recent origin; that many gaps in education and training in the iron and steel industry still need to be filled. The new Iron and Steel Board should he allowed to play its part in filling some of those gaps like any other agency.
Last year, when I was temporarily away from the House of Commons, I had the pleasure of going to the United States as a member of the British team which went to study American supervisory training and I played some part in writing the report of that team. I think that it can


be said that in the iron and steel industry, as in British industry generally, there is still a tremendous field for further work in the training of foremen and supervisors. Why should not the Board have the right, if it sees the need, to establish staff colleges and training centres of the appropriate kind to help train these supervisors?

Mr. Low: The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) finished his speech by asking why the Board should not have power to set up a research agency. Of course, what he is seeking to do by this Amendment is to enable the Board to carry out research and training and education itself

Mr. Palmer: If it wishes to do so.

Mr. Low: —if it wishes to do so, and if certain things happen—just as previous Amendments moved from the other side of the Committee sought to give the Board power to carry on works itself, and lines of development within the industry itself, and import materials itself. We were just discussing that a moment or two ago. But the Bill already makes it possible for the Board to make loans to persons undertaking any such research, and really, under the Bill as it is now drafted—I think the Committee will agree with me on this point—the Board can make all the contribution to research, training and education that the hon. Gentleman wants it to do.

Mr. Palmer: Why should it be prohibited?

Mr. Low: We prohibit the Board from doing these things because we think the Board's job is to supervise and influence the general policy of the industry, and we do not want it to become directly involved in undertaking any particular part of the industry's business. Moreover, the membership of the Board will not necessarily be such as to qualify it for this. As my right hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago, there will not necessarily be on the Board people skilled in importing raw materials; nor will there necessarily be on the Board people skilled in particular types of research.
I want just to make one further point about this Amendment, because I was interested to see that the name of the

right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. Strauss) did not appear associated with it. I am wondering if there is any significance in that, because the Committee may remember— and this is the first quotation I have made from the right hon. Gentleman—that on 29th January, in discussion of this Bill, he said this to us:
We believe that the Board should not be limited to "—
certain things and to—
do one or two other things which are wholly unimportant because they are being done already. For instance, they are already dealing well with research and education."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1217.]
By "they" he meant firms. I am sure he did not wish to contradict what his hon. Friend and I am saying, that research, training and education are very important matters indeed, but he did seem to me—his words seemed to suggest this—to be agreeing with us that these are not the sort of things that the Board should do itself.
For the reasons I have explained to the Committee we consider that the Bill already provides for the Board to make all the contribution to research, training and education which is desirable and which is desired by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, who moved the Amendment, and we think it would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to give the Board power to do those jobs itself, and, therefore, we hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I very much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit to accept this Amendment. He has quoted me in support of his argument —I do not think, properly. I was arguing at the time that the Board is being given no powers of any importance, or only some of comparative unimportance, and I said I thought that these powers to deal with research, training and education were comparatively unimportant because at the moment—and I repeat it—these things are being done pretty well by industry.
That does not mean it will always go on doing them well. It does not mean it may not be desirable in a few years' time—if the Board still exists, which, I think is unlikely, because there will be


a change of Government by that time— but if the Board should still exist at that time it may be desirable to branch out in some new line of research and do some training. Now, it is probable that that work would be better done by some agency rather than the Board. I agree it is probable; but it is not certain. Why, therefore, deprive the Board by statute of the right of doing something which may be of some importance?
We feel rather keenly about this, because it follows the line of the attitude of the Government in all matters affecting the powers of the Board. The Board is given responsibility, but either it is given no power to do anything of importance, or where it has some apparent power steps are taken by

Amendments to curtail that power. We want the Board to be a body with status, authority, responsibility and power in a number of important directions. This is not an all-important one, but why should the Board be debarred by statute from ever doing its research, training or education? We do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has advanced any good reason why the Board should be deprived of that power, and we therefore propose to divide the Committee in favour of this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 232.

Division No. 96.]
AYES
[10.26 p.m.


A[...]tken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donner, P. W.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Jennings, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Banks, Col. C.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Barber, Anthony
Erroll, F. J.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Fell, A.
Kaberry, D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lambton, Viscount


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fort, R.
Lancaster, Col C. G.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Foster, John
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Birch, Nigel
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Leather, E. H. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gammons, L. D.
Linstead, H. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Llewellyn, D. T


Bowen, E. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gough, C. F. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Braine, B. R.
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Low, A R. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimond, J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bullard, D. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macleod, RI. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Channon, H.
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major S. F.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marples, A. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hollis, M. C
Maudling, R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mellor, Sir John


Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Molson, A. H. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)




Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Robson-Brown, W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Tilney, John


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Russell, R. S.
Turner, H. F. L.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Turton, R. H.


Nutting, Anthony
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Oaksholt, H. D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Vosper, D. F.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott, R. Donald
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Osborne, C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Watkinson, H. A.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wellwood, W.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Pitman, I. J.
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G.


Profumo, J. D.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
York, C.


Redmayne, M.
Summers, G. S.



Remnant, Hon. P.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edelman, M.
Kenyon, C.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Canno[...]k)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur


Awbery, S. S.
Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Baird, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.


Balfour, A
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J.


Bartley, P.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Bence, C. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Benson, G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.


Blackburn, F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie
Messer, F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Bowles, F. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Brockway, A. F.
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Moyle, A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Nally, W.


Chapman, W. D.
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Cullen, Mrs. A
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Peart, T. F.


Deer, G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Porter, G.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Keenan, W.
Pro[...]tor, W. T.







Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
West, D. G.


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon John


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheeldon, W. E


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Swingler, S. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Richards, R.
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Henry (Derbyshire. N E.)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wigg, George


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Willey, F. T


Ross, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thornton, E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Short, E. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Usborne, H. C.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Slater, J.
Viant, S. P.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H. W
Wyatt, W. L.


Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Sparks, J A
Weitzman, D



Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Popplewell.

It being after Half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order, left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.